Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Soman

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a request for adminship that did not succeed. Please do not modify it.

Soman

[edit]

Final (22/29/17); Ended Mon, 22 Jan 2007 17:36:05 UTC

Soman (talk · contribs) – Active for over two years, Soman appears to simply have been overlooked for mopping, and deserves a chance now. He does not deal with process much (although when does, he knows what he's doing) but has a stunning list of nearly two thousand articles he started over the years. Such mightier-than-the-sword penmanship certainly deserves recognition. >Radiant< 17:30, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

I humbly accept the nomination. --Soman 18:25, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia in this capacity. Please take the time to answer a few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:

1. What sysop chores do you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog and Category:Administrative backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.
A: Mainly mergers, moves and *fDs.
This initial comment was of course to brief. However, these 3 criteria were not selected on random. I work mainly on articles on organizations (and often political, with complicated histories). I have at many times encountered situations were I think I would be able to contribute in a more giving way by contributing with my understanding of political dynamics (often relating to mergers/splits in political movements), if I had the possibility of obtaining tools of merging and moving. I think I have a good judgement on issues relating to naming and delimitations of article material (generally preferring more exact definitions of article titles rather than descriptions of general phenomenons).
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any with which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A: I'm quite proud of contributions like some articles on Francophone West African politics, like African Socialist Movement, African Convention, African Regroupment Party, African Popular Movement, Party of the French Union of Côte d'Ivoire, Students and Pupils Movement of Côte d'Ivoire, etc. Not that these articles are particularily great by themselves, but in many cases they represent subjects very likely to have been overlooked and left without representation at wiki. There are also articles like Communist Party of the Free Territory of Trieste, Set Persson, Communist Party of India (Marxist), All India Forward Bloc, U. Muthuramalingam Thevar, UCCRI(ML), Communist Party of Indonesia, Chondoist Chongu Party etc. that I think I've done significant contrubutions to. Lastly, I'm quite happy to be able to contribute by establishing interwikis across a wide range of languages. Also, I've uploaded a large quantity of images, which are used across a wide range of articles.
3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
A: I mainly edit articles on political issues, and at many times debates can be rather heated. At a glance it could seem that I'm quite stubborn. In many of those situation I have been subject to name-calling, ad hominems, and in s few cases even verbal abuse and threats. However, I think that in several cases I have shown a willingness to debate (see for example Talk:Left Party (Sweden)). Being active debates on politically volatile subjects and articles easily creates many adversaries, but I try my best to adopt a constructive attitude. One can see several examples that I'm open to cooperation and dialogue also with those with whom I have differences of opinion.

Optional questions from Malber (talk · contribs)

4. If you encountered an editor who was also the subject of a biographical article editing their own article, how would you handle this situation as an administrator?
A: The general guideline must be that one should not edit article dealing directly with oneself or persons in one's near surrounding. Much of info coming out of such edits is impossible to verify, and one should be extremly cautious about letting personal anecdotes, etc. pass as encyclopediatic information. Not everything relating to an individual, even one of great public notability, is needed in a wiki article. Self-promotion by nn people has to be fought sternly when detected (see for instance Rivaji). IMHO, selfpromoting of bloggers should be fought with special focus.
That said, I have come across some quite interesting contributors that have shared interesting aspects to articles dealing with people presumably close to them. For example User:Vinodm, who appeared to be the son of Anil Moonesinghe, and who edited several articles relating to the political activity of his father. Such people can share light on aspects otherwise missed about notable individuals. Sound judgement should be the principle. Malafide deletions and reverts should be avoided if the editor shows a credible attitude and as long there as material is within the realm of what is possible to countercheck for verifiability.
5. Can you name at least one circumstance where it would be inappropriate to semi-protect an article?
A: There is a possibility in cases that deal with issues outside of the knowledge of virtually all wikipedians. Lets say there is a POV revert war on an ethnic conflict issue in a remote area in a country in the postcolonial world. Roughly, there is an urban, establishment POV (present amongst elite sections in the larger cities of the country or amongst wealthy expatriates, siding with the dominant ethnic group/government forces) and a POV of the concerned group in the periphery. The former will by 99% change have a clear numerical superiority at wikipedia, with several editors to mobilize. The latter POV might have only one editor represented in the wikipedia community. If it is clear that semi-protection of an article will effectively mean that the POV of the article will be tilted (since the only editor representing a dissenting viewpoint would be barred from editing), then introducing semi-protection would mean that the wikipedia community would cement one political POV, contrary to ambitions to have NPOV articles and openness to discussing alternative viewpoints.
Clarification: This comment was answer to whether I could think of any scenario when semiprotect should possibly be avoided. I do want to clarify that I do not see this as a typical case and that the comment should not be interpreted in the sense that I'm sceptical towards the usage of semiprotection overall. The answer is not a very probable case since the usage of semiprotect tends to deal with a completely different type of articles, namely those that attract large amounts of visitors and on which balance between established wikipedians and casual visitors would tilt towards the latter. --Soman 15:11, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
6. What would your thought process be to determine that a business article should be deleted using CSD:G11?
A: It is difficult to mention exact wordings to look for, usually gut feelings go a long way. However there are a few things to keep in mind. First of all one should look at the first 1-3 edits. If these edits contain surprisingly detailed information, then it is most probably the owner of the business who is behind it all. If exact mention of prices, services, location and/or opening hours occur, then there is a clear case for speedy deletion. If the editor is newly registered, that's another warning sign. If the editor seems keen to promote his/her article with wikilinks from other articles (like the article of a geographic location), its another sign. Lastly, a google test will (at least regarding most thoroughly industrialized countries) usually do it. If it is mentioned in newsarticles from print media, even a few, speedy deletes should be avoided and the articles at least be given the benefit of the doubt to improve within a few days.

Optional question(s) from WJBscribe (talk · contribs)

7. What do you think of WP:CIVIL? Are there any circumstances in which you feel the policy can be disregarded?
A: The policy as such should not be disregarded. However, there should be an understanding that wikipedia is used by a global audience, and that people interpret comments differently. When approaching behaviour contrary to the WP:CIVIL policy, the intention of the behaviour needs to be addressed. A differentiation of behalf of the admins needs to be made between persons seeking to spoil dialogue and the wikipedia community overall and people with honest intentions but who has difficultly expressing themselves along policy lines.
General comments
  • Comment: Some questions have been raised regarding my experience in dealing with *fDs. Of course, I cannot claim to a higher edit count that the one I have, but I would like to state that I do regularily monitor *fD listings. I enter in those debates in which I judge that my participation in the debate is of value and difference to the outcome. --Soman 15:16, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Support

  1. Go for it! >Radiant< 17:30, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Support- 2,000 articles! That may be the top on Wikipedia! Experienced user. --TeckWizTalk Contribs@ 18:31, 15 January 2007 (UTC)Changing to neutral --TeckWizTalk Contribs@ 22:54, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support He really deserves the mop because of his excellent contribution. Shyam (T/C) 18:54, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support Solid editor and good work history. Edivorce 19:07, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support - great editor. Khoikhoi 20:00, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support a fantastic editor, that I've always found polite and civil, even when put under severe pressure.--Aldux 20:28, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Strong support, great user who I thought was an admin already,--Wizardman 20:38, 15 January 2007 (UTC) Changed vote, I didn't see wikispace edits the frst time.[reply]
  6. A dedicated, polite, helpful fellow. I come across his Africa-related work from time to time, and I'm consistently impressed with it. Q1 could definitely be longer - but brevity isn't much of a penalty in my book. He's shown a use fo the tools, and he's certainly unlikely to misuse them, so support. Picaroon 21:09, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support No way to oppose such a dedicated user. His answer are good, and he'll use the tools to everyone's benefit. Ganfon 21:37, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support per Ganfon. --tennisman sign here!`
  9. Support, great contributor. JACOPLANE • 2007-01-15 22:06
    Support long track record of thoughtful and productive contributions; seems like he'll make a low-key but responsible and trustworthy admin. Opabinia regalis 01:26, 16 January 2007 (UTC) On reading question 5, change to neutral. Opabinia regalis 01:59, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support great editor.-- danntm T C 16:10, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Strong Support great editor in political stuff, these editors in the future could be great help in political articles as mediators on talk pages. Also, he created a huge amount of these articles! -- Walter Humala Godsave him! (wanna Talk?) 19:02, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support, excellent editor with strong commitment to objective and knowledgeable editing. Not convinced by answer to question 5 but other answers are good. Palmiro | Talk 22:33, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support a very active editor especially in Africa-related topics. -- Szvest - Wiki me up ® 14:42, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support. Singopo 00:35, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support. An excellent editor. Meticulous about details. Knowledgable. Dedicated. He should make a good admin.--Dwaipayan (talk) 11:48, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Outstanding editor. Strong support. El_C 01:32, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support. Proto::► 15:01, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support Just the sort of person who ought to be an admin.--Runcorn 16:15, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support per nom.--R613vlu 22:16, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support 2000 Article Starts = Dedication needed in an admin. Just H 00:20, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support, dedicated and very unlikely to abuse the tools. If the user wants the mop and bucket, by all means allow 'em to pick it up. GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 10:08, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support, definitely. I'm amazed by the oppose votes here. Everyking 13:17, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  1. Oppose While the candidate's contributions to the mainspace are very impressive, the extremely small number of contributions outside the mainspace are underwhelming (i.e. only 260 in the wikispace). Such a low participation rate outside the mainspace provides me with little indication that the nominee even needs the tools, and his answer to Q1 doesn't persuade me otherwise. It also provides me with little indication the nominee really knows the key policies. Actions speak louder than words, so I'll be happy to support after a significant improvement in participation outside of writing articles. While adminship is no big deal, it's also not a reward or prize given out for prolific article writing. Agent 86 19:04, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose Many of those "2000 created articles" are little less then stubs for many times very small political parties. Many of those created articles also lack any sources which account for one of Wikipedia's fundamental principals: Verifiability. The following are some articles created with no sources: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], etc... Upon reviewing this user for this RFA I have also noticed that after a discussion in March of last year on Talk:List of political parties in Peru over the use of these unverified stub pages in that article the candidate had waited until November to add them all back [7] I also don't agree with the following edit conflict on the Shining Path article where the user continued to revert back to an image of pro-SP graffiti in Stockholm, Sweden claiming that a cell of the Shining Path existed there. [8] [9] Regardless of one's political beliefs the simple fact is that it was irrelevant to the article because a group of people out in Sweden claiming themselves to be followers of the Shining Path is irrelevant, yet despite this the user continued to insert it into the article. I've unfortunately found that trait to be common by looking at the user's edit history. With all of this evidence I can not support adminship.--Jersey Devil 23:16, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment it is completely unethical to remove other user's votes on RFA's as you did here [10]--Jersey Devil 23:26, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I edited from an older version, thus removing comment accidentally. --Soman 23:33, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok thank you for clarifying that.--Jersey Devil 23:35, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Regarding the Peruvian parties, I clarified long ago on the talk page of List of political parties in Peru that the source for the large numbers of stubs was [11]. That said, I think that one would be able to see a difference between my initial work at wikipedia and later in regards to using references, a natural step as the work becomes more structured. --Soman 23:41, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    What matters is that none of those pages as of today have references. There is really nothing more to say then that.--Jersey Devil 23:43, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose per Jersey Devil and for reasons dealing with the lengths of POV-pushing and vandalism this user went through to whitewash a notable controversy on Brinda Karat (who incidentally is a high ranking member of the Communist party of India) [12],[13]. The page history shows a protracted battle in which I tried to bring mainstream criticism to the article and was rebuffed by soman an another user even when I provided multiple reliable sources to attest to the facts[14]. Also the users habit of seeing "communalists" everywhere is disturbing. Also the user in question accuses other of being politically motivated [15] showing utter ignorance of WP:AGF.Bakaman 23:36, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose I get a bad feeling about this candidate's temperament and skills at dealing with other editors. Seems a little to prone to snap at other and be a little blunt [16]. Also very poor use of edit summaries, and not a strong reason given for needing the tools. TigerShark 01:11, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose per those above. Yuser31415 03:08, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Strong oppose per above opposes, and answer to question five. You apparently do not understand what semi-protection; it isn't ever used to stop content disputes with IPs, only vandalism. Also, adminship is not a reward for working on the encyclopedia. Working a bit on the encyclopedia is sometimes nice, to show that a user isn't going to succumb to adminitis, but encyclopedic contributions are never going to get me to support a candidate, because adminship is about technical tools, not article writing. -Amarkov blahedits 03:55, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I hope you mean that encyclopedic contributions are the only criteria for support, not that one could do without them and still get your support. --210physicq (c) 05:22, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Um... neither. I said that I don't care if there are all that many, but there still should be some. My point was that I'm not going to oppose because someone only has 200 article contributions (or at least, it won't be the only reason), while I will easily oppose someone with only 200 projectspace contributions. -Amarkov blahedits 05:27, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Oops, I screwed up the question. I intended to ask this: "I hope you mean that encyclopedic contributions are one of many criteria for support, not that one could do without them and still get your support." Sorry for my sleepiness. --210physicq (c) 06:57, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, that was what I meant. -Amarkov blahedits 22:35, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Although I do not support this candidate, I entirely disapprove of this view. It a/ encourages newer editors to spend more time bickering in policy forums and xfd pages and less in creating content, which is A Bad Thing, and b/ ignores that adminship is in fact intended to be a "reward for service" in that it's simply a mark of being trusted not to misuse the tools. Making it a question of "needing" the tools is silly, and denying it to editors who do not participate in particular forums very wrong, particularly when those who are denying it do not themselves contribute more metacontent and not much actual material. It's not that I have a problem with your being a metacontributor, Amarkov, but I do have one with your insisting that others should be one too to gain your support. I think that on deeper reflection you might agree that without content contribution, there is no encyclopaedia, and that those who contribute content should not be discouraged in any way, particularly not by withholding marks of trust, which is how the admin bit is more widely considered. Grace Note 07:59, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose per those above.--D-Boy 07:40, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Oppose I'm uncomfortable with the answer provided to question 5, that's not at all my understanding of semi-protection should be for. This answer is particularly unnerving with respect to the "heated" arguments that are discussed in question 3. What happens when a "heated" argument involves an anonymous user and suddenly a page ends up semi-protected? Sure a lot of anons are vandals, but many are legitamite and may have different views than Soman. I'm confident based upon Soman's dedication to the project that they would not intentionally abuse their administrative powers, but "debates" - which Soman has said he is willing to engage in (Q3) - can get pretty heated, especially when they're political. --Matthew 08:37, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Weak oppose - Very good contributor (created 2000 articles? Great!), but a slight lack of WP edits per above. Insanephantom (my Editor Review) 08:39, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Pragmatic Oppose - Don't want you wasting your time on administrative actions when you're such a great editor. You don't need to be an admin, and your strength is in writing articles. yandman 11:06, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Oppose - per above. My eyes glazed over proletarian-speak in his answer to Q5. While we all suscribe to different ideologies, i'm not convinced that Soman would be able to divorce his biases from his administrator duties. Amey Aryan DaBrood© 15:20, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Oppose. Appears to have a poor grasp of Wikipedia's fundamental content policies. Jayjg (talk) 17:24, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Oppose at the risk of piling on, as there seems to be a serious lack of understanding of key policies. I suggest serious rereading of the basic pillars before anything else... TewfikTalk 17:32, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Oppose - it's fine that Soman is a passionate editor, but there is no evidence that there's the good judgment needed to be a solid admin. And if there are concerns about the grasp of content policies, there's cause for serious concern. --Leifern 17:36, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Oppose per Jersey Devil and POV issues raised above. Beit Or 19:35, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Oppose. Seems not understanding what semiprotection is for.--MariusM 19:50, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Oppose per Amakarov, Jayjg, et al.. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 20:04, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Oppose per Bakaman and Leifern. 6SJ7 20:17, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Oppose per above.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 20:21, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Oppose per above - seems to have own interpretation of policy. --Squeezeweaseltalk 22:56, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Oppose per above. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 23:38, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Oppose per answer to Q5. Rama's arrow 23:54, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Oppose above notes including Q5. Carpet9 00:34, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Oppose per above. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:46, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Oppose per above. Sorry, but creating a lot of articles seems not so impressive if they're created as reference-less stubs. This also shows lack of grasp of core content policies. Also response to Q5 seems off - what does the numerical balance of editors with different political views have to do with semi-protection? Semi-protection is specifically about restricting editing by new or anon IP accounts, not minority view editors. I'm not sure where this 99%-hegemonic-forces-on-Wikipedia is coming from either. Bwithh 16:25, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Oppose per answer to Q5. I also agree with Bwithh and TigerShark. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 21:22, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Oppose The lack of edit summaries is a concern here. --Siva1979Talk to me 16:44, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Oppose per semi-protection concerns. - Mailer Diablo 20:01, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Oppose - nothing to make me support. Too little XfD participation. Answers and previous actions show problems with understanding key wiki policies. Too many stubs. Try again later. --ElaragirlTalk|Count 22:04, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

  1. Neutral I understand that you are a great and valuable contributor to the mainspace, but neither your edit count, nor your answer to Q1 show any need of the tools. Plus, your edit summary usage needs some work. I would've voted oppose if it weren't for your rather impressive efforts in the mainspace. Sorry. ← ANAS Talk? 19:21, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Neutral I will go neutral on this because of the answer to question one only the merge task requires admin powers and that can be requested from active admins already. Excellent editor otherwise. (aeropagitica) 20:04, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Neutral Virutally no XfD experience keeps you from a support.--Wizardman 22:33, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Neutral, changed from support-It's amazing that you've written 2,000 articles! That may be the top on Wikipedia! However, you answer to Q1 was weak, and I consider it and Q3 the most important.
  5. Neutral You have nearly 20,000 edits, and a good spread into WP:NAMESPACE. Only your answer to Q.1, which gives no indication of why you need the tools, stops me supporting. Do you want to expand your answer?--Anthony.bradbury 22:59, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Neutral In your answer to question 1, the only item that showed a need for administrative tools was Deletion debates and of those you have almost no experience. Also, the answer was a little short. You seem to be a great editor, but I'm not sure you'd be as useful as an administrator. Cbrown1023 23:33, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Neutral --Sir James Paul, La gloria è a dio 00:45, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Neutral - no doubt an excellent contributor with an incredible number of contributions, but becoming admin would make this harder. Wasn't blown away by answer to Q1 either. I think a bit more interaction with other users on their Talk pages, along with some more clear demonstration of policy knowledge would make this candidate a good admin in the future. The Rambling Man 07:43, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Neutral, good editor, but needs more experience in areas such as xFDs. Terence Ong 11:46, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Neutral Wizardman summed up my feelings. Sorry. --Dweller 13:34, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Neutral. Great mainspace edits but simply not enough project space contributions to be able to assess policy knowledge and judgment. WJBscribe (WJB talk) 22:40, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Neutral change from support. Excellent editor, but needs a bit more familiarity with policy, I think. Opabinia regalis 01:59, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Neutral. Great editor. Answers to questions 4, 6, and 7 raise some questions about familiarity with policy and process. Dragomiloff 02:13, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Neutral: Excellent editor, but unclear demonstration of policy leds me to be neutral. S.D. ¿п? § 12:32, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Neutral. Excellent editor but lack of WP namespace edits. Will surely vote support next time if the concerns will be addressed. I feel that many opposers here opposed Soman only due to his political views. - Darwinek 19:08, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Neutral. All my interactions with Soman have been positive, but purely based on past contributions and answers to questions, I don't think he needs the tools. There is nothing with him I find "opposing", hence this neutral comment. Wikipedia should encourage people from different backgrounds, and I feel that Soman has done good work in countering systematic bias in some fields. — Ambuj Saxena (☎) 12:24, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Neutral. Soman's contribution is impressive, but lack of edit summary usage and Wikipedia edits causes concern. Sorry. PeaceNT 15:15, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Soman&oldid=1079938735"