Talk:Asmongold

  1. Home
  2. Wiki

Found a good source

[edit]

This article should be cited more. Has lots of information on his political views. RationalWikian (talk) 15:36, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That many of his views meet the definition of "right-wing" is not an issue, and the lead can say that without issue. Labeling his person as "right-wing"... I see an issue with that. Labeling a person is different from labeling words, and implies membership in a class, and I think needs attribution, if not specifically ("... according to The Atlantic") at least generally (e.g. "... widely considered to be") Marcus Markup (talk) 16:10, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The lead describes him as a political commentator. It isn't saying he's a right-wing person in the abstract, it is specifically referring to his political content. He isn't a journalist, and he isn't pretending to be impartial (or if he is he is failing utterly at it). As a summary of his political commentary this is short and to-the-point, which is what the lead should be. "Widely considered to be" introduces WP:WEASEL issues. Grayfell (talk) 21:48, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
He supports LGBTQ rights, adult transitioning, gay marriage, and the right to abortion. He supports universal healthcare. Action on climate change. He's pro union. He's said that he is willing to borrow from socialism useful ideas, and thinks the best economic system is 60/40 capitalist/socialist. He took the "Political Compass" test and scored "left-libertarian". He believes Trump tried to rig the 2020 election, and has been critical about his supporters saying they “will believe and repeat literally anything he says and never question anything—whatever the cost". Regarding his being into DOGE and cutting government, cutting government to the bone is not uniquely a right-wing thing, but is also a libertarian thing. Also a thing with some libertarians is opposition to an open border until migration is no longer incentivized by the provision of government benefits upon arriving. Regarding his bigotry against Muslims, again, bigotry is not a defining aspect of right-wing thought, I am thinking Sam Harris whose views on Islam are so harsh as to cause him to be routinely considered "Islamophobic". Labeling Hoyt's words as "right-wing", with no qualification, based on the opinions of a handful of writers who obviously hold him in contempt, in the first sentence of his bio, seems to be an unwarranted categorization, perhaps a result of Hoyt violating a pet cause of the author which made the headlines... certainly not based on a survey comprehensive enough to include his less inflammatory thoughts and statements. Marcus Markup (talk) 01:52, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
All of this is original research. The political compass test is a joke and a meme, and performatively taking such a test proves nothing. It is not a credible source for anyone's beliefs. Grayfell (talk) 19:20, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The test Hoyt took may well be a joke. I was thinking he took a test based on the Nolan chart... a test I recall taking decades ago, which certainly was not a joke or a meme, and was hawked by the Libertarian party. Marcus Markup (talk) 22:09, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
All of this is original research I did not cite those facts because I am proposing including them in the article. I recited them as part of the process of vetting the quality of the work of the author of the source, which is completely appropriate. We as editors are encouraged to do due diligence in ensuring that our sources and their work adhere to encyclopedic standards, and that includes reviewing and discussing material for which inclusion in the encyclopedia is not desired or warranted. Marcus Markup (talk) 22:15, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Looking into the source a bit more, it does not seem that "good", at least as far as it being useful as rationale for our labeling Hoyt "right wing" in Wikivoice. The article was posted in the "Culture" section of the web site by an author who "covers pop culture and music" for the Atlantic[1]... using his opinon as rationale for our use of Wikivoice is of course unwarranted... he does not have the qualification. The Perennial Sources entry for the magazine warns that "Editors should beware that The Atlantic does not always clearly delineate between reporting and opinion content" WP:THEATLANTIC. Using a pop culture columnist's POV as a source for our labeling Hoyt as "right wing", in Wikivoice, in the first sentence of this person's article is by no means "good". Marcus Markup (talk) 22:41, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
People are no longer satisfied by the "left/right" political dynamic constantly invoked during political dialogue. The political establishment and its admirers of course continue to support such a division, but many people consider the division unsophisticated and dated. No longer are the labels of "left" or "right" sufficient to describe many people's politics. Libertarians, in particular, are by common definition "socially liberal and fiscally conservative". They hold views which are typically considered left-wing, when it comes to individual freedoms, but hold views which are traditionally considered "right-wings" in so many ways that they are routinely categorized as not "libertarian" but "right-wing". I believe the cited sources for our usage of him being right wing are politically naive, perhaps even intentionally so, and because their POV does not allow for political views to stray from the "left-right" dynamic, they project their POV onto the subjects of their writing. When it comes to political labels, we simply cannot use leisure and culture critics POVs to be used as sources for the nature of an entertainer's politics, except with attribution. Editorial insistence that the POV not be attributed implies a universality of agreement into the nature of the speech on his show, and the nature of his person, that is simply not present except among a handful of politically unsophisticated writers. I feel the need to remind my colleagues that this is a BLP, and impeccable sourcing is required, especially when labeling a person using a POV term many consider derogatory and a pejorative, in the first sentence of their article. Marcus Markup (talk) 15:54, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Your opinions about what people are or are not satisfied with is irrelevant. This talk page is not a forum for general discussion, and Wikipedia doesn't publish original research. Rein it in, please. Grayfell (talk) 19:20, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My comment, on the whole, raised valid points pertaining to the improvement of the article. I will not apologize, or cease, occasionally including context or precursor to my points. Marcus Markup (talk) 22:01, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We disagree on the legitimacy of the Nolan chart, but without a reliable source, it has no relevance to improving this article, and that is the sole purpose of this talk page. If you think that a journalist for a green-check outlet, writing an article about a livestreamer, should be discounted because they cover 'culture', what should we say about David Nolan's expertise as a fringe political activist? The answer is 'nothing', because this still has nothing to do with this article, hence WP:NOR. Grayfell (talk) 23:35, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The Atlantic is green check for its reporting, and a distinction is made between it and opinion pieces. The source article appears to me to be an opinion piece. As I said above, the entry for it in the Perennial Sources table says that some editors have pointed out that The Atlantic blurs the line between its reporting and its opinion pieces, implying that this Leisure and Culture reporter's writing was probably not editorially vetted for the accuracy of its political categorizations. The words of social critics are, by definition and intention, POV, and using them without attribution, and with the implication that their POV is somehow objective or universal, would be encyclopedic malpractice. Marcus Markup (talk) 00:20, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have not seen any compelling argument for why this needs to be treated as an opinion piece. This is pretty standard New Journalism stuff. The coverage is deep and the author provides plenty of context for their conclusions. The author does also provide their own perspective, ("I recognize his hypnotized, single-minded mentality from my own gaming experiences", for example) but this isn't what the source is being cited for. Grayfell (talk) 20:15, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Grayfell. Protectron123 (talk) 13:46, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://www.theatlantic.com/author/spencer-kornhaber/

Remove "Right-Wing" Political Commentator until you find better sources

[edit]

If you are so passionate about including that moniker, you need to find better sources. The only reliable source that is cited is the Atlantic, but the writer is a culture critic and it clearly falls under "Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces". The other two are from somewhat obscure gaming magazines. In its current form, it's an NPOV and BLP violation, as the other editor recently noted.

WP:RS is clear, a reliable source should not be used for a statement of fact if the source is editorial and opinion commentary, which in this case it is. Please see WP:NEWSOPED, where it is written plainly: "Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact."

I really don't see why all the back and forth on this edit. If other editors are so certain he is right-wing, find more reliable sources to support it, or else re-write the article so that the Atlantic article about him being part of a group of other "right-leaning" streamers is correctly attributed to that editor or author of the Atlantic, rather than as a statement of fact. Until then, the term "Right-Wing" should be removed. 107.218.124.222 (talk) 12:55, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Here are the three sources for this:
None of these sources appear to be unreliable, nor are they opeds or editorials. Grayfell (talk) 18:05, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Let's break this down. The three sources, all opinion articles, are the sourcing for blanket defining this guy as "right-wing" as a statement of fact. And how was that determined? In these ways:
  1. The op-ed in The Atlantic, from this single paragraph (pro tip: starting a paragraph with "Sometimes I'd start to wonder" is a great way to identify that something is an opinion piece): "Sometimes I’d start to wonder what I was doing spending time listening to Asmongold at all. Then I’d notice that 60,000 people were watching live, or I’d go to his YouTube page and see that the viewership for any given clip from his streams ranges from the hundreds of thousands to the millions. He may sound like just some guy on the couch—but now he, and many other guys on the couch, have captured a slice of the voting public, and have ties to political figures of influence. Not all gaming streamers are alike; Piker, who’s been hyped as the potential “Joe Rogan of the left” in news coverage since the election, delivers heady Marxist theory and wonkish research on geopolitics in a tone of frat-boy exuberance. But Asmongold is the more popular figure, and he’s one member of a larger, right-leaning ecosystem." And how do we know that he's a member of a right-leaning ecosystem? Because Spencer Kornhaber, pop culture columnist at the atlantic, thinks he is.
  2. The second source that was used to justify the label was the article from gamedeveloper.com, which while attempting to be a little more journalist in tone, is filled with editorializing. The sole justification is that none other than unknown writer Bryant Francis (who?) simply deemed it so, by declaring that: "Around that time, content creators and Steam users in the far-right ecosystem began a campaign targeting work-for-hire game narrative studio Sweet Baby Inc." and then: "One such creator was streamer and Mad Mushroom cofounder "Asmongold," who repeatedly discussed the campaign in a number of 2024 videos, agreeing with the claims" There's nothing else in this article about Asmongold, because the article isn't even about him. And the entire crux of using this article as a source is this: Anyone that criticized the narrative studio Sweet Baby Inc. was de facto right-wing, and oh by the way, Asmongold also criticized them on his stream. Therefore, Asmongold is right wing. Logic checks out. There's no fallacies there, right? RIGHT?
  3. And lastly, the last "source" for declaring as a statement of fact that Asmongold is a purely right-wing political commentator is the highly esteemed "aftermath.site" website, where the author of the op-ed shares his opinion that Asmongold has "leaned further into far-right politics". You can find this in the paragraph section, of the article you claim is not an op-ed, titled "The Asmongold Problem". You can't make this stuff up.
And that's it. Those three things are the entire justification for universally declaring in the opening introduction of a living person bio that they are "Right-Wing" in the entirety of their political commentary. Give me a break. 107.218.124.222 (talk) 20:43, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
These are not opinions just because you don't like what they say, and the Atlantic often publishes longer-form journalism which uses includes the journalists perspective and conversational elements. These elements are more prominent in New Journalism, but they have existed for about as long as journalism itself has. This style of writing is not the same as opinion content, and the purpose of that article is not to advance any particular opinion or cause.
If we're sharing pro-tips, than be aware that 'op-ed' isn't the same thing as 'opinion', and using them interchangeably weakens an already weak argument.
'The Asmongold Problem' was referring to when Asmongold went on a racist tirade, which created a problem for companies he is or was involved with. This tirade caused OTK issue a statement distancing themselves from Hoyt's views, and then Hoyt stepped-downed from his leadership position with the group. What is this if not a problem? Good lord. Grayfell (talk) 01:36, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
These are absolutely opinion pieces. I can't speak for others, but I neither like nor dislike what these opinions have to say, and nothing I have read above would imply the previous points were based on personal feelings about the content of the sources. What I dislike is that they are not reliable sources for a living person biography for use as a STATEMENT OF FACT. They violate every written policy about how to use opinion sources and the care that should be taken when writing and editing living person bios. A living person bio should ALWAYS err on the side of neutrality in cases when there is even the slightest of doubts. There is ample evidence to show that there is legitimate, good faith concerns as to the sourcing being used to make a blanket statement of fact in the intro of this living person bio. For that reason alone, the "right-wing" term should be removed to restore total neutrality to the article until which time a consensus can be reached. It is not up to Wikipedia editors to decide if this person is or is not right-wing, and by using poor sourcing to make a statement of fact like this, that is what they are trying to do.
No amount of attempts to define obvious opinions in an article as "New Journalism" is going to change the fact that the Atlantic article, while ironically being the most reliable source used, is actually the most egregious of the sources in terms of its blending of opinion into the article, making it entirely unsuited to be used as a source for a STATEMENT OF FACT in a living person bio. The other two sources are not reliable at all. Whether or not you think they are opinion doesn't even actually matter. One is only listed as a reliable source for topics of game development, making them, again, entirely unsuited to be used as a source for a statement of fact about someone's political leanings. And the last source, aftermath.site, is not listed as a reliable source at all, and as a relatively unknown, obscure gaming news site with very low reach and unknown journalistic standards, it is, again, completely inappropriate to use as a source for a statement of fact in a living person bio.
You can dance around this reality all you want, but hiding behind technicalities or arguments about what defines New Journalism really does not change at all that the use of these sources to make a statement of fact in a living person bio violates both the spirit and the letter of Wikipedia guidelines. Rebel Gnome (talk) 20:22, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
pro tip: starting a paragraph with "Sometimes I'd start to wonder" is a great way to identify that something is an opinion piece) Ending it with "I recognize his hypnotized, single-minded mentality from my own gaming experiences. After a certain amount of playtime, what’s on-screen stops looking like a coherent world and starts looking like inputs and outputs, challenges and rewards. And when you look up, reality feels like the screen." is also not exactly Cronkite-esque either, if you know what I'm saying. The guy literally closes his piece by admitting his flaws, his past experiences with incoherence, and his tendency to project! Marcus Markup (talk) 14:17, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently that's just "New Journalism", so it's all good! Rebel Gnome (talk) 20:25, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Asmongold is left-leaning. Don't believe me? Here's some primary sources, aka his own words:
He supports Universal Basic Income
He thinks rich people should pay more taxes
He is a huge fan of Bernie Sanders 216.71.201.101 (talk) 03:40, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect it is his headline-grabbing bigotry towards Palestinians which has some people (including writer from The Atlantic) absolutely convinced he is "right-wing", and that cancels out in their minds, his left-wing and libertarian views on many social issues. The implication that being a meanie is a defining aspect of being "right-wing" is a mistake pop culture critics get to make, but not serious political thinkers, or encyclopedias. Marcus Markup (talk) 06:31, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly my point. He has said right-wing things, he has said left-wing things. If anything he sounds more akin to a shock jock or some kind of populist commentator who benefits in viewership by discussing controversial topics. But the point is it doesn't matter what we as editors think he is, what matters is the current sourcing does not support labeling him "right wing" as a statement of fact. It's not the job of a Wikipedia editor to make the determination one way or the other, only to find reliable sources that contribute to adding the content required to accurately, dispassionately, and fairly describe a notable person in their bio, and Wikipedia guidelines are crystal clear on how to handle living person bios when it comes to disputed points of fact that are poorly sourced. Neutrality in the article should always win out.
It's really a disgrace that this has remained live on the article for so long. Looking over the edit log it is abundantly clear that zero consensus has ever been reached on this topic, as it's been in a virtual edit war ever since it was added, which means the WP:ONUS should have always been on those wishing to add the right-wing moniker BEFORE it was ever included into the article, especially given the special requirements that are to be taken in living person bios specifically. Rebel Gnome (talk) 16:21, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is WP:OR — Czello (music) 16:24, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
He's not listing those sources to say they should be included in the article, he' just making a point that it's a complicated subject that has nuance. Nothing changes the fact that the current sources are not appropriate to be used as a statement of fact in the way they are being used, and I have yet to hear any counter argument to that point. Rebel Gnome (talk) 16:31, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Czello please do not undo edits to page without discussion here first. Consensus to include the content you are trying to add has clearly not been reached, and the WP:ONUS is on you to achieve that consensus before adding it. All one needs to do it review the talk page to see that consensus has not been reached.
WP:BLP is clear that disputed content related to the neutrality of the article should be removed immediately.
The path forward is to remove the disputed content first and then achieve the consensus on talk. It is not appropriate to include the disputed content without consensus. Rebel Gnome (talk) 13:37, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Pretty fishy when a brand new account starts spewing Wikilinks like an old pro while misrepresenting both the substance of this discussion, and the cited sources. Grayfell (talk) 19:01, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am a long time IP editor and decided to finally create a user account because I got tired of other editors reverting my edits for no other reason than the fact that it was coming from an IP address.
And I misrepresented nothing. I read the entirety of those articles that were being used as sources, and I think I outlined their flaws pretty thoroughly already here in Talk.
The loaded term was stealth edited into the intro of a living person bio as a statement of fact using questionable sources without any discussion, much less consensus. And once noticed, it remained in a virtual edit war until now. Rebel Gnome (talk) 19:29, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hey @Grayfell. The "right-wing" had been removed. Fortunately, I was able to restore the previous status quo. Should this page perhaps be locked or something? Protectron123 (talk) 13:39, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There has been and is no consensus for calling Hoyt "right-wing", and the "status quo" at this point is for him to remain unlabeled. Biographies of living people have very high standards for using loaded terms to label people... please familiarize yourself with WP:ONUS and WP:BLP. Marcus Markup (talk) 14:59, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's only you, "Marcus", and the user "Rebel Gnome" who are opposing this long-established consensus? I think @Grayfell and @Czello are more of an authority here. I will now revert this back to what it was before. Protectron123 (talk) 19:53, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There was no consensus, and I'm not sure where you pulled "long-established" from. Regarding Czello, they admitted there was no consensus for inclusion here when they said, Indeed, I believed there was a consensus on the talk page from the discussion there, but in hindsight I was mistaken. Marcus Markup (talk) 20:07, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It was a solid consensus either way. Protectron123 (talk)

20:10, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

Furthermore, what's your relation to @Rebel Gnome, "Marcus Markup"? Protectron123 (talk) 20:14, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I do not appreciate the implication or the scare-quoting of my user name. I will not humor such trollery. Please remember you are no longer on Rational Wiki. Marcus Markup (talk) 20:31, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Protectron123, there is no relation other than the fact that both myself and @Marcus Markup (and others that have also weighed in here in the past) seem to believe this living person biography should remain as neutral as possible and that adding anything where the sourcing is disputed should be discussed here first and consensus reached. This should be your stance too, so it's concerning that it's not. When I got involved on this particular article, I was honestly surprised that there was such an active and prolonged dispute over the particular "right-wing" edit and yet editors here insisted on trying to keep it live on the article anyway, despite clear guidelines about how to handle disputed content when it is related to living person biographies. The fact that we continue to have this debate about it here on Talk should answer your question about whether or not consensus has been reached. My contention from the very beginning has been that this source from The Atlantic, while perfectly fine to continue being used for this article in other ways, has never been appropriate to use as a source to make a statement of fact in a living person bio in the intro paragraph. Rebel Gnome (talk) 22:18, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear as I was tagged, I was mistaken when I said there was a consensus. In hindsight I cannot see one. — Czello (music) 20:52, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I feel that the "right-wing" commentator description should be restored. Grayfell had numerous, reliable sources for the edit, whereas everyone else who commented here was only relying on their personal interpretation of out-of-date statements that they apparently heard Asmongold make in the past. By Wikipedia standards, this shouldn't be a controversy, because the "right-wing" description is the only one backed by recent, high-quality information. Hko2333 (talk) 05:28, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

None of the sources that were cited are considered reliable for the way they were being used. That is, to make a disputed "statement of fact" in a living person bio. That's really the crux of it in my opinion - making it a statement of fact. Simply declaring he is right wing, case closed, end of story; And basing that declaration on some weak sourcing, no less. That's where it's inappropriate. The reasons have been debated here ad nauseam, but I will paste part of my previous remarks again here for your reference:
"...the Atlantic article, while ironically being the most reliable source used, is actually the most egregious of the sources in terms of its blending of opinion into the article, making it entirely unsuited to be used as a source for a STATEMENT OF FACT in a living person bio. The other two sources are not reliable at all. Whether or not you think they are opinion doesn't even actually matter. One is only listed as a reliable source for topics of game development, making them, again, entirely unsuited to be used as a source for a statement of fact about someone's political leanings. And the last source, aftermath.site, is not listed as a reliable source at all, and as a relatively unknown, obscure gaming news site with very low reach and unknown journalistic standards, it is, again, completely inappropriate to use as a source for a statement of fact in a living person bio." Rebel Gnome (talk) 14:02, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Change to extended confirmed protection

[edit]

Due to his political views and controversial statements (espcially regarding Palestine) , this also aligns with other commentators who pages are extended confirmed protection and other pages of the same topic (especially Israel snd Palestine partisan issues) 185.69.145.6 (talk) 17:03, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think there is a special noticeboard you have to appeal to, IP. Protectron123 (talk) 19:55, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Horrible writing

[edit]

The below paragraph is among the worst things I’ve ever read on Wikipedia, which is particularly surprising given the high profile of the subject.

Sure, valid source, but the entire passage is just a poorly strung together set of snippets from the source article. It should be deleted entirely and the article used as a citation elsewhere in the page.


Hoyt has been described as being "technodeviant"; of being part of a group of typically involuntary celibate, white, heterosexual males whose privilege is alleged to displace marginalized communities from the gaming space. His non-gaming content has been described as being "carefully constructed to largely read apolitical unless taking up a particular right-wing grievance". The authors further said the "suggestion is that he is performing his brand for an audience, and that his statements do not adequately reflect his personal beliefs". Reference is made to a series of misogynistic comments he made which alluded to a former girlfriend and felt "obligated to say ... because his audience would want to hear them". In 2019 while in response to the murder of George Floyd in 2020, Hoyt provided "powerful commentary on disguised racism in the design of emotes" on Twitch. 147.147.185.167 (talk) 00:14, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The paragraph is based on a non-notable paper written by two non-notable academics. Nobody is talking about their paper in any way and there are therefore no secondary sources. I did object to its inclusion, but my revert was reverted. The initial insertion was also peculiar in that it did not actually include the purport of the authors of the paper, but seemed tailored to include one sentence fragment: their mention of the recently-contentious term "right-wing". In the interests of NPOV, I then added context and purport. Without at least one secondary source referring to their work, I still support complete removal of their conclusions from the article. Marcus Markup (talk) 01:34, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In the heirarchy of RS:
Peer-reviewed academic paper > primary SPS, and non-notable niche online outlets.
As the latter are used prolificly through the article, there's nothing wrong with including sources that discuss Asmon which have some academic rigour behind them. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 11:54, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What academic rigor are you seeing, exactly? 75.132.176.144 (talk) 22:38, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 19 September 2025

[edit]

CHANGE NAME FROM ZACK TO FULL NAME ZACHARIAH 83.233.145.75 (talk) 20:17, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Day Creature (talk) 20:40, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 23 September 2025

[edit]

asmongold is agnostic and should have a category under it 158.121.180.32 (talk) 19:36, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Slomo666 (talk) 19:51, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 24 September 2025

[edit]

Semi-protected edit request on 24 September 2025 (2)

[edit]