User talk:Aradicus77

Category:Proto-punk groups has been nominated for merging

Category:Proto-punk groups has been nominated for merging. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Gjs238 (talk) 20:03, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Internet Aesthetics

Hello - I just wanted to say thank you for your extensive contributions thusfar. I'm often editing Cottagecore to bring it in line with other pages e.g. Dark academia, and it would be great to discuss possible terminologies that internet aesthetic articles can draw on rather than 'proponents of x', 'fans of y' and so on. If you have any thoughts on this while traversing the different pages, do let me know - maybe it would be best to have the conversation in Talk: Internet aesthetics? Becsh (talk) 23:18, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! I'm not sure what you mean? But yeah we could have a discussion on that page's talk page. I've been working on establishing more articles on early internet art. There's big gaps in blog era movements that have not really been noted yet. It seemed at the turn of the century most artists saw the proliferation of art through the blogosphere to be the way forward for innovative art practices, and then that sentiment kind of died down but left the groundwork for a lot of what exists right now (the popularity of internet aesthetics pioneered by Tumblr users in the early 2010s, internet microgenres becoming normal in the online music sphere amongst gen Z post-hyperpop in 2020, but was pioneered by millennials with chillwave and vaporwave).

I don't know much about the aesthetics you highlighted cottagecore and dark academia. The main thing about writing about aesthetics here is that there's not many sources for the more nicher variants. I'd like a weirdcore page to exist but I don't think there's enough reputable sources. But feel free to add more nicher aesthetics to the Internet aesthetics related examples section. I think there should be more expansion for it to encompass notable aesthetics like bimbocore, barbiecore... etc. That saw some attention in the press but not notable enough for their own articles. Aradicus77 (talk) 00:25, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your Sandbox

I had made a mistake on reverting your sandbox. My apologies. No ill will intended. I fixed my error as well. Bntlyprce (talk) 21:27, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rage music

Hey dude my name is Deegs and I actually wanted to know if I could send you some super early instances of “proto” rage beats being made and rapped over in the UG as far back as 2017! A lot of the songs were made by me and my friends and have the streams to back up! I would love for our contributions to be included in the lore if possible 198.58.251.234 (talk) 03:16, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My IG is @de3gs 198.58.251.234 (talk) 03:16, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That'd be cool but I don't think that's possible bro, like the way wikipedia works is you need like a news article / reputable source to write about stuff. There's hella stuff I want to add but if it doesn't have good sources it just gets deleted. Also people would ban me for promo too if I added it. But thanks for reaching out Aradicus77 (talk) 03:18, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for fixing the hyperpop wiki page

hi, i see you around a lot on wikipedia and i wanna say thanks for fixing the hyperpop wiki page, it was really outdated and i saw you on the talk page for it saying you were gonna fix, i wanted to add some stuff to it but im still new to wikipedia and didnt wanna mess up anything

also your music taste is amazing btw Yellowcalx4 (talk) 12:10, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

DAMN thanks a lot, it really means a lot to get messages like this im surprised a few people heave reached out lately. You should definitely add stuff to articles, good-faith edits are supported, if you got some sourcing it's pretty much fine, other editors can help in incorporating it better into the article.

Wish I could follow people on here, pretty cool community XP Aradicus77 (talk) 12:53, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

same tbh, you seem very cool and again i appreciate you adding a bunch of stuff for modern music genres, im a genre nerd and it hurts seeing a lot of modern stuff just be wrong or outdated

i’m definitely gonna try and do some small edits to articles and stuff. also again amazing taste glad to see some twikipedia and xavsobased fans randomly on wikipedia Yellowcalx4 (talk) 21:45, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

July 2025

Hello, I'm Lofi Gurl. I noticed that you recently removed content from Mumble rap without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Lofi Gurl (talk) 02:42, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mumble rap's stylistic origins being rap rock and hard rock is not sourced, those sources were dead, and to make stylistic origins sources like that you need far more than 1 source. One of the sources claiming it came from rap rock was also just an article about XXXtentacion's death that mentioned him making indie rock infused trap music. Aradicus77 (talk) 11:19, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Okay fair enough, just state it in the edit summary if the links were dead so people can see what is being removed, the edit looked like an unconstructive removal at face value. Thanks. Lofi Gurl (talk) 12:48, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Cut-and-paste moves

Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you tried to give Noisecore a different title by cutting its content and pasting either the same content, or an edited version of it, into another page with a different name. This is known as a "cut-and-paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits the page history, which is legally required for attribution. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.

In most cases for registered users, once your account is four days old and has ten edits, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page (the tab may be hidden in a dropdown menu for you). This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other pages that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Wikipedia:Requests for history merge. Thank you. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:46, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, it doesn't work when moving the page to another page when there's already a page made. When I submitted Shitgaze to Wikipedia:Requested Moves, users told me to just "cut-and-paste move" as you've stated. So I just started doing that for pages. It seems if a page has been denied, or previously deleted. You have to go through Wikipedia:Requested Moves to move it. Is there any other way to go about this? I waited 4 days when messaging whoever deleted the Jack Ruby (band) page originally in order to move it, and the person who deleted it never replied. Subsequently, the same thing with Shitgaze. I waited same amount of time and no one ever moved it and I was told I could move it myself with that method you mentioned. Aradicus77 (talk) 22:49, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the information about Wikipedia:Requests for history merge. I'll list the pages I've moved that way now: Noisecore and Shitgaze

Aradicus77 (talk) 22:50, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The specific situation involving Shitgaze was unusual, both in that there was prior article history and that you were the only author of the draft; in that specific scenario a cut-and-paste move might have been warranted even though it in general isn't.

I have no idea what is going on with Jack Ruby (band). But, more generally than that, if you can't complete a move then you have to go to WP:RMTR; trying to circumvent the way the software works only causes trouble. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 23:02, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Unconstructive talk page comments

Hello. I'm Serge, an Admin here on Wikipedia. Welcome back to editing. However, I've got some concerns about some of your talk page comments you're leaving. Wikipedia is a collaborative effort, where we're all supposed to be working together to improve things. You're not exactly starting things off on a positive note when you announce your presence to any of the article's past contributors with comments like

Approaching everyone with a "well you've all done terrible work but don't worry I'm here" isn't going to work. Please stop that immediately. Even if Wikipedia didn't have guidance against that, you should want to stop of your own accord - you're not doing yourself any favors talking to others like that. Sergecross73 msg me 15:18, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody even replies though? It's not even really to even attack others, most of those articles were made years ago. Like the experimental rock one. It seemed someone complained about it in 2019. And it was still showing the same issues. It's kind of just a thing for me to mark what to add next but yeah I can change it doesn't matter really, but as you've said it's not really breaking a rule at all. It feels you've misconstrued what I was going for there. But I'll take your advice in good faithAradicus77 (talk) 15:20, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The main reason I even made those claims is due to being shocked for example that a page like the industrial music page was voted GOOD ARTICLE. With a bunch of unsourced claims, misinformation... etc. Although it could be said that at the time it was a good article and as time went by people ruined it. But man I've contributed quite A LOT to these pages. This isn't to say I'll keep making those statements, but I'm quite literally the only person bothering to take the time to fix these articles. Many of them have gone 10-20 years without any big revamp edits to the whole body. And I've been surprised to see numerous editors come forward to thank me for these edits. I'm trying to "modernize" these pages, it seems music is one of the most unactive areas on Wikipedia. A page like indie rock doesn't even have 1k recent editors which is surprising to me for such a massive genre, and then you have punk rock that also had a lot of issues with it such as lack of information in more important areas and unsourced claims, misinformation... etc. I've taken hours out of my time to contribute.

I'll say sorry because I do want Wikipedia to encourage new young editors to join, that's kind of what I want to encourage here. I want to see a Gen Z music editing community on here, editors making good-faith edits and more experienced editors incorporating them into the articles, it would be great to find likeminded individuals on topics and music. I've known people IRL at school who said they contributed to Wikipedia at one point but it was removed instantly and thats why they've never bothered with the site again, this is the narrative I want to delete. So thank you for bringing this to my attention. Aradicus77 (talk) 15:21, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please just talk about actual things you wish to fix, there's no need for the idle complaining. I'm not saying they don't need clean up - the whole reason I came across your edits is because I keep an eye on the new wave article because there's been a recurring disruptive editor who keeps making bad edits over the years. It likely needs improvement due to their efforts. I'm just saying that comments like the above serve no purpose other than potentially rile up or offend anyone related to the article. And I'm saying there are guidelines against that, but even if there weren't, it's still a bad idea. Sergecross73 msg me 15:27, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for agreeing to stop. I'm not sure you had written that part yet at the time of me writing my response, as you've added to it a couple times now. Sergecross73 msg me 15:28, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have noticed that editor. Wasn't there an editor who kept reverting it being from the United States? Something like that I'm not sure. I think that was the reason the article was originally locked. In general if you want me to not edit an article like New wave I don't mind that's not really my forte anyway. I just focus on copyediting or organizing information to read better. Aradicus77 (talk) 15:28, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That other editor had a hard time separating their personal stances (WP:OR and WP:SYNTH) from what reliable sources reported. We've got to follow WP:V and WP:RS and they, like many beginners, struggled with that. But they never stopped making those mistakes, and resorted to abusing multiple accounts. And got blocked. They've been gone for a bit though. Either they've left, or they've minimized disruption to that article to the point of it not being noticeable at least.

You're free to edit the article if you like, its up to you. Just be careful. Editing related to music genre is a constant issue. I imagine there will be a lot of discussions with others, and that's why I wanted to say something. You'll probably encounter some weird opinions. There's always some person with a strange hot take that "The Foo Fighters are nu metal" or something or other. There's always people who want to go off of their own personal stances, but we've got to remember to stick to what sources say, even when it doesn't match our worldview. And that can be tricky too, as you may find a reliable source that makes an assertion you completely disagree with. I remember someone presenting a reliable source that one of Lizzo's album was a rock album. I didn't agree with that. And while nothing forces me to add that of my own accord if I find it, if others wish to add it in good faith, it can be difficult to contest unless you can demonstrate its a WP:FRINGE viewpoint. Sergecross73 msg me 16:13, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think the cool thing about Wikipedia is how blocks are so relaxed, that no matter what if you really showcase a change of heart you're allowed to come back, though having to wait some time. I feel that should be made more clear when you are blocked. When I was blocked I had no clue you could appeal it until a kind user told me. Also I barely focus on mainstream music genres like you mentioned nu metal. But what I've seen for genres as big as punk rock and indie rock. There doesn't seem to be a lot of people adding new information constantly or even recently, it's usually either removing or little fringe phrases. I think I've made up a good chunk of a lot of these articles recently. Aradicus77 (talk) 12:39, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah and stuff like that lizzo thing you mentioned. I pretty much don't bother with album genre stuff like recently I added "post-punk" to The Modern Dance since it's been regarded as a post-punk album in recent years, but someone removed it to add art punk. At that point I just let it go. Wikipedia genre wars are pretty pointless and not as important as the rest of the article itself. I only really edit super erroneous claims, like when someone tried to say The Stooges (album) was heavy metal. Aradicus77 (talk) 12:41, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well, your approach may help some then; I tend to deal with genre issues more in the context of album and song articles, and I think that's where a lot of the disputes tend to break out. ("That song's not real metal", "that artist isn't real country", etc.) I generally just support whatever reliable sources directly state. Occasionally, when there's a particularly questionable assertion, the problem can be solved with adding some context too. ("The band has been described as (genre)(source)(source) but other publications refute the label.(source)(source).") Sergecross73 msg me 14:57, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hyperpop

Hello there! I saw this article on the GA nominations page, and just wanted to stop by to say great job on it. There's a few stylistic things which I wanted to let you know about, however, which are not strictly against GA rules but may be good to implement:

Per MOS:LQ, punctuation like periods and commas should generally be outside of quotation marks, especially for when sentence fragments are being used. This is done correctly, for instance, in the line Hyperpop has been described as "post-internet". but not in other lines like According to Vice journalist Eli Enis, hyperpop is not so much about following music rules, but "a shared ethos of transcending genre altogether, while still operating within the context of pop."
Per MOS:REFPUNCT, references should be placed after punctuation marks, and not before them. For instance, in the line Other influences included bubblegum pop[29] and emo[1], alongside heavy metal genres like crunkcore, nu metal, and metalcore.[25], reference #25 is placed correctly while reference #1 is not.
And to this point, make sure that citations appear in places where they follow the text which they are citing; I see this issue a few times, such as in the line Journalist Aliya Chaudhury believes 3OH!3 "created the main blueprint for hyperpop"[25] with their "ability to parody pop and take it to bewildering extremes," using "blown-out synths, and modulated vocals." where the citation should be moved to the end of the sentence instead of appearing midway through.
Finally, per MOS:LEAD (specifically MOS:LEADCITE), a lead should ideally be a summary of information already inside the article's body, and thus the citations there could be removed save for the more controversial sentences.

If you keep these things in mind and brush up the article accordingly, the article not only be easier to navigate and comply with the Manual of Styles, but it will also look more polished. Good luck on your nomination :) Leafy46 (talk) 21:09, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot for the headsup. I'll revamp accordingly. Aradicus77 (talk) 12:43, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

History of involuntary celibacy page

The involuntary celibacy page was deleted 5 times and then salted. White unsalted it and undeleted it to the chagrin of many veterans including feminist veterans, who advocated moving her initial writing to some page like misogyny. At this point, White was defining involuntary celibacy itself as a subculture. This offended even the most generic Wikipedians who then held a vote and moved her involuntary celibacy page to incel in 2018, continuing along the same line, except this time by saying "incel is a subculture of people who think they are involuntarily celibate. In both of these cases, the impetus, and her stated imeptus was to downplay involuntary celibacy as a real thing. A narrow majority of interested Wikipedians about a decade ago agreed that involuntary celibacy was not even a real thing, despite being confronted with over a dozen WP:RS sources. Later, all that disagreed with White on a regular basis were banned on tenuous grounds and started their own wikis and websites. Due to White's stated intention to challenge your article no matter what is on it, even though she preferred he article be at involuntary celibacy shows she wants to continue to monopolize the subject on here. The same reason she helped AFD an article about a related, bigoted forum. Your chances of your draft passing any kind of challenge is next to none. White is described by critics of Wikipedia as a "nuclear" administrator force on Wikipedia, along with other veterans like David G erard. If you continue your draft despite it just for fun, please keep in mind half your sources are actually about what White regards as the "incel subculture" and the other half are not about involuntary celibacy as a subject. The sources I gave, the first 12-15 are pretty much exclusively about involuntary celibacy with close to 0 mention of what some regard as a subculture. Actually nearly all the sources I provided don't even mention the word incel or blackpill at all except 4 or 5. I actually cannot think of any more sources beyond what I provided that would meet Wikipedia's standards, at this point, which totaled about 41 sources. The Fox News one can't be used though. 98.118.249.156 (talk) 03:01, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is very interesting, it does seem your article spoke more about the broad history of celibacy throughout different cultures and history. But some parts were badly written like the part on Jordan Peterson and there was a level of bias. Don't get me wrong, there's also heavy bias on the current incel page and red pill and blue pill page, and doesn't feel that encompassing of a neutral point of view, even though the incel subculture itself is far more extremist than the history of involuntary celibacy. I feel the article you added would not have been approved at all if was sent out. The one I'm trying to write is more focused on the history of the term involuntary celibacy and how people have regarded it throughout history. I don't really believe involuntary celibacy to be a "thing" in the sense that its a condition that affects people. But I'd like to read more into what you added and the writers you've cited. Aradicus77 (talk) 03:04, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also who is White? I don't think I've spoken to this person. Aradicus77 (talk) 03:05, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The sources you mentioned that don't mention the subculture seem useful. That's pretty much what I needed but what you are telling me that she might just disapprove entirely regardless makes me feel like writing this article is a waste of time. It's also an article that would rely a lot on primary sources. And this is kind of a history that a lot of people aren't focusing on at the moment as the incel subculture is far more prevalent in the media than the history. For example, most people who have heard the word incel have no idea that it was coined 300 years ago. Aradicus77 (talk) 03:08, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Who is White", the person you were arguing against, see User:GorillaWarfare, where she gives her name. She also has her own Wikipedia article. She served on ArbCom and is the self-appointed steward of the incel page for over 7 years. Every few years some people come to her to put their sources or perspective in. The result always is she'll contribute to deleting any possible overlapping page, she will merge anything she can to her page to create a larger coatrack, any user arguing with her for more than a month will just end up banned, or she'll make very minor changes to her page.

"The sources you mentioned that don't mention the subculture seem useful. That's pretty much what I needed but what you are telling me that she might just disapprove entirely regardless makes me feel like writing this article is a waste of time"

Using sources that define it as the "incel subculture" would indeed skip the BS arguments and delete it solely for being a duplicate page, so yes that's why my sources (which aren't really mine, they been brought up time and time again in AFDs), are necessary to establish it as a unique article, as User:Valoem points out a decade ago. User:Valoem was the last good standing Wikipedian to do what you are attempting to do here and has his own draft in his userspace. 98.118.249.156 (talk) 03:18, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

She seems to be somewhat notable, had no clue about that. I felt making a distinction between "involuntary celibacy" and "incel" would be the most useful thing to happen to the topic on Wikipedia but it seems like it probably won't be possible until like the 2030s or something. There's not enough wide talk in academia or in the media of the actual history of "involuntary celibacy" and most discussion is geared around the subculture like I've mentioned. Wikipedia seems to pick and choose on what to make difficult and what not to make difficult. There's a lot of articles I've observed that if an admin wanted to guard could remove a lot of sources by employing rules on a whim. Like I've seen sometimes people use sources that aren't allowed and it stay on... etc. I feel I might just let go of the involuntary celibacy and blackpill page and focus on just researching the topic on my own. Since the incel page is so guarded and this is not a war I have any time or patience to fight. Aradicus77 (talk) 03:24, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

" most people who have heard the word incel have no idea that it was coined 300 years ago" This is original research, first argued by User:Thylacoop5 on a wiki I created (unrelated, notice he's also banned from Wikipedia). It's entirely speculative based on google scholar and google books queries. What a reputable Wikipedian would want to see are sources devoted to involuntary celibacy as a singular subject which in turn contribute content to the article 98.118.249.156 (talk) 03:24, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It was coined 300 years ago. It wouldn't be original research, it would just not be allowed because its a primary source. If a big news site wrote about it then it'd be allowed. Aradicus77 (talk) 03:25, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The real history of involuntary celibacy is just monopolized at the moment and I can't see that changing unless the consensus in the media and general culture changes. Aradicus77 (talk) 03:26, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's not entirely monopolized, there are websites exclusively about involuntary celibacy, and wikis, Facebook Groups, and quite a few sources I provided. A singular page would need to rely more on pre-2018 articles though, and you are right about that. But there are also academics who continue that dry matter-of-fact content on involuntary celibacy as a singular subject, like Karel Karsten Himawan. Most of all though, it's just not a popular thing to write about as a dry subject. Calling things a subculture or group or movement is a sexier and lazier and easier way to write about things 98.118.249.156 (talk)

FWIW, you're talking to a sock of the WMF-banned Willwill0415, who's been on a multi-year crusade to try to POV-push on the incel article (and related topics). While they have a rather significant grudge against me, as you've probably noticed, their descriptors of me as a "nuclear administrator" and so on are highly exaggerated. I am an administrator on Wikipedia, but as with all administrators, I do not use my admin tools in topic areas where I am "WP:INVOLVED" — including the incel page. If you continue working on your draft I may well express my opinion at the ensuing DRV discussion about whether the page should be recreated, where it will be considered alongside other comments from other editors, but will not carry any more weight than any other editor's comment simply because I'm an admin. I will not (and should not, and cannot) unilaterally prevent you from creating the page. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 17:19, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Im not working on the involuntary celibacy article anymore. At the moment theres not enough consensus in the media or academic focus on the topic outside of the subculture as our conversation outlined. Im not collaborating with this user I was hearing them out also I reverted most of their edits and kept their sources for my own independent research outside of wikipedia. Aradicus77 (talk) 18:49, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Generation Z music genres has been nominated for deletion

Category:Generation Z music genres has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Lil Happy Lil Sad ^:): 05:07, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your nomination of Internet aesthetics has failed

Your good article nomination of the article Internet aesthetics has failed. See the review page for more information. If or when the reviewer's feedback has been addressed, you may nominate the article again. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Phlsph7 -- Phlsph7 (talk) 10:23, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

August 2025

Hello. I wanted to let you know that in your recent contributions to witch house (genre), you seemed to act as if you were the owner of the page. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to Wikipedia. This means that editors do not own articles, including ones they create, and should respect the work of their fellow contributors. If you create or edit an article, remember that others are free to change its content. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. ..Also... stop restoring the template:about for the top of the page time after time again.... It is obvious that the page is about a music genre considering the page is literally named "witch house (genre)" Lil Happy Lil Sad ^:): 00:41, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Crazy accusation. Everyone is free to remove whatever, but it was strange to me they kept trying to remove any mention of rappers on the article, when I had already sourced the additions. I was tired of them removing sourced information around 3 times now at this point. Calling it "own" is weird. I don't care that much to be guarding articles, but I am one of the only people contributing to these articles that haven't had massive changes in almost decades Aradicus77 (talk) 03:26, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And you just reverted it again, are you missing the article I sourced? I don't understand what's going on Aradicus77 (talk) 03:27, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.complex.com/music/a/kyle-garb/witch-house-microgenre-halloween Aradicus77 (talk) 03:27, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also it's not me that added that template about? That's been there for years Aradicus77 (talk) 03:35, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]