en.wikipedia.org

User talk:Lililolol - Wikipedia

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Rosé and Evan Mock.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Sricsi (talk) 22:18, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Lililolol. I'm Quaerens-veritatem. Thank you for your edits of Gal Gadot. When I saw the page history showing your edits, I didn't see edit summaries. I know you're an experienced editor and I don't mean to be condescending or ignorant of WP:DTR but, per WP:TR, I encourage you – please provide a summary of every edit you make. Also, see your talk page request for summaries by @RachelTensions: 11 December 2024. Of course, the summaries are very helpful to people browsing an article's history and the summaries help other editors by (a) providing a reason for the edit, (b) saving the time to open up the edit to find out what it's all about, and (c) providing information about the edit on diff pages and lists of changes (such as page histories and watchlists). In case you were unaware, the edit summary content is visible in:

Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit and a summary of what the edit changes. You can give yourself a reminder to add an edit summary by setting Preferences → Editing → Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary. As you likely know, if the edit is minor, the "This is a minor edit" box can be checked, and a good rule of thumb is that only edits consisting solely of spelling corrections, formatting changes, or rearrangement of text without modification of the content may be flagged as minor edits. Many who are ignorant of the Wikipedia policy on edit summaries fail to add them. Some ignore this basic brief task; however, failure seems inconsiderate specially since summaries are so easy to add. According to Wikipedia's consensus policy, all edits should be explained, either by clear edit summaries, or by discussion on the associated talk page. Thank you for your attention and in advance for your compliance with our consensus policy . Kind regards, Quaerens-veritatem (talk) 00:36, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Lililolol. Please respond to the above request and regarding the earlier one. See, WP:LISTENTOUS. As you may know, failure to communicate may lead to being blocked from editing. Thank you. Quaerens-veritatem (talk) 05:43, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Quaerens-veritatem Honestly, I don't leave an edit summary because I’m not sure what to write, especially when adding a lot of info. By clicking review, you can see that my edits aren't disturbing or problematic, so I don't see the need to write a summary. Lililolol (talk) 19:00, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well Lililolol, Wikipedia's consensus policy, is that all edits should be explained, either by clear edit summaries, or by discussion on the associated talk page. I trust you will abide by Wikipedia's policy.

First, to help you here are some abbreviations you can use:

alpha = put this list in alphabetical order

rm = remove

+ = added or rephrased a longer bit of text

cap or caps = fixed capitalization

c/e = copy edit: cap, format, punc, style (e.g. "due to the fact that" for "because",

"ascertain the location of" for "find"), sp, contractions should be spelled out, put

in External links or Further reading, confused words (its and it's; there, their, and

they're; your, you're, and you; lose and loose; lie and lay)

cl = 'tidying-up' edits, many different kinds of small changes in a single edit, spelling and grammar fixes

cr = correction = made one or more copy editing corrections.

del = deletion

disambig = Removal of ambiguity-disambiguation of a link

EL = add or del external link

fm = format fix (might add ‘per WP:MOS’)

ft = added or rephrased the following brief bit of full text.

gm = grammar fix

head or h2, h3, h4, h5, h6 = use ‘head cap’, incorrectly laid out with "head3" ("h3")

header (i.e., === text ===) instead of "head2" ("h2") (i.e., == text ==)

mv = moved one or more portions of article to another location in the same article.

nn = not noteworthy text (rmv nn)

punc = rectify punctuation

rd = add article redirect to another article

ref, refs = added or fixed one or more source citations

WP:RS = reliable source as in: not WP:RS or + WP:RS

reorg = changed the order of sections or otherwise altered the organization (as opposed to the text) of the page

rmv = remove - removed some text from the article.

rv = revert (vandalism?)

see Talk = explained on Talk page

sp = fix spelling

tweaks = one or more minor copyediting changes.

typo = typographical error

Second, it's quite simple. Just briefly write what you did. Using your edits, for example, for this edit write "+ ref" or "+ WP:RS", for this edit can write "+ content re: Wonder Woman earnings", for this edit tap the "This is a minor edit" box (see my above, initial "January 2025 Edit summaries" about use of this box) and put "+ ref name", for this edit write "del unnecessary refs", for this edit can write "+ photo & + content re: President Reuven Rivlin invitation", for this edit can write "+ content: Australian Jewish News article", for this edit write "+ photo & content re: the world's most famous Israeli", for this edit can write "c/e", for this edit you could write, "c/e, rmv names of critics Noah Berlatsky, Tamar Hermann & Arielle Iniko Newton, del Hermann reflection."
I hope this helps.

By the way, your ref named ":2" was defined multiple times with different content (see References section-reference 28.) - please correct. Quaerens-veritatem (talk) 00:37, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article One of the Girls you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Vestrian24Bio -- Vestrian24Bio (talk) 11:45, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Talk That Talk (Twice song) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Kyle Peake -- Kyle Peake (talk) 18:23, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The article Talk That Talk (Twice song) you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Talk That Talk (Twice song) and Talk:Talk That Talk (Twice song)/GA1 for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Kyle Peake -- Kyle Peake (talk) 21:05, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The article One of the Girls you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:One of the Girls for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Vestrian24Bio -- Vestrian24Bio (talk) 06:02, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Gal Gadot, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Time's Up (movement).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:56, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Fate ((G)I-dle song) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Kyle Peake -- Kyle Peake (talk) 13:42, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The article Fate ((G)I-dle song) you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Fate ((G)I-dle song) and Talk:Fate ((G)I-dle song)/GA1 for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Kyle Peake -- Kyle Peake (talk) 16:25, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The article Talk That Talk (Twice song) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Talk That Talk (Twice song) for comments about the article, and Talk:Talk That Talk (Twice song)/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Kyle Peake -- Kyle Peake (talk) 22:05, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The article Fate ((G)I-dle song) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Fate ((G)I-dle song) for comments about the article, and Talk:Fate ((G)I-dle song)/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Kyle Peake -- Kyle Peake (talk) 10:04, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Lililolol. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Cultural impact of Scarlet Witch, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 22:08, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I have noticed that you often edit without using an edit summary. Please do your best to always fill in the summary field. This helps your fellow editors use their time more productively, rather than spending it unnecessarily scrutinizing and verifying your work. Even a short summary is better than no summary, and summaries are particularly important for large, complex, or potentially controversial edits. To help yourself remember, you may wish to check the "prompt me when entering a blank edit summary" box in your preferences. Thanks! - FlightTime (open channel) 20:29, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Third notice. - FlightTime (open channel) 20:32, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Sabra (character). This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Maxwell Smart¹²³³²¹ 20:21, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Maxwell Smart123321 Hell no Lililolol (talk) 20:22, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Maxwell Smart123321 i have told you let take on the take page bruh Lililolol (talk) 20:22, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm tempted to take this to Admin because you keep reverting. "I have told you let take on the take page bruh" ... well yes but have you replied? Nope. Stop reverting and add what you want done to the talk page first. Maxwell Smart¹²³³²¹ 20:24, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Maxwell Smart123321 Sorry, but did I revert any edits afterward? No. Do I have a life outside wiki? Yes, that's why I didn't answer. Like, bro, give me at least 60 minutes to respond. Lililolol (talk) 20:42, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lililolol tone down the aggressive tone and childish "comebacks". This is an encyclopedia and not social media. You have been warned about this before, so please stop. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 06:39, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Them! Wonder Woman.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of non-free use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 03:49, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Catwoman Various incarnations.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of non-free use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Hello, Lililolol. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Scarlet Witch (comic book), a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 19:09, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Lililolol. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or draft page you started, "Cultural impact of Scarlet Witch".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! DreamRimmer bot II (talk) 21:24, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you keep removing Muslim converts in Judaism in the article https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_converts_to_Judaism ? Why are you targeting these people? Beanywoman (talk) 21:43, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Beanywoman "Targeting these people?" Bro, as I stated in my summary, these few individuals are not notable enough to be included on Wikipedia. See WP:NOT & WP:N. So why include them? Lililolol (talk) 21:50, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I saw you added a notability template to Efrat Abramov, so I wanted to update you that I am planning to update and expand the article based on hewiki and I hope that will give a better picture of the subject and hopefully keep the article online. The process will probably take me a week or so, so please be patient. Thanks, DGtal (talk) 07:56, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Devon Windsor, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Master Chef.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:55, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Listicles don't belong in the lede, they are subjective - basically seasonal space fillers, interesting but not like an Oscar or something. If you look, I didn't remove it, I moved it to Reception, where it belongs. Guy (help! - typo?) 08:39, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How are you "enhancing" the images you are using? Are you using some sort of AI? File:Bella Hadid at Cannes 2018 (enhanced).jpg looks like it has some awful AI artefacts. The rightmost earring looks like an almost liquid blob of silver whereas the original image shows it as having four lobes. Please do not replace real photographs with AI manipulations, even if your intention is to enhance them. A bit of natural blur or graininess is preferable to an image that is questionably authentic. Please self-revert to remove any other images that you have used the same technique on. --DanielRigal (talk) 22:33, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@DanielRigal Um, it's actually a filter from PicsArt. So I guess it's bad? Although I don't see it, still feel free to replace the image Lililolol (talk) 22:35, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Change it Lililolol (talk) 22:41, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@DanielRigal So anyway, I want to ask you a question: What do you think of the image of Rachel Zegler? I uploaded multiple screenshots, and for some of them, I added a 'clarity' filter to make them less blurry, similar to what I did with the image of Bella Hadid. Do you think I should use the original or the edited version? Lililolol (talk) 22:46, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I was just looking at that. Unfortunately, I think that they are both bad. The original picture, from the screenshot, has an odd facial expression, poor lighting and a messy background. I think it would be better to go back to the previous picture. I understand your point about a side picture not being optimal but it is not a big problem. --DanielRigal (talk) 22:51, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The filter is creating higher resolution images than the original inputs so clearly it must be generating data out of thin air somehow. Picsart mentions them using AI in their products so I don't think they can be used on Wikipedia images. If the tool didn't warn you that it was using AI to generate the image then that's bad. I'm not sure what the official line is but I'd advise you to be very suspicious of any tool that claims to be able to upscale an image to a higher resolution. --DanielRigal (talk) 22:45, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@DanielRigal Sorry, I didn't think PicsArt was bad; I thought it would make the quality better. Lililolol (talk) 22:52, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately the world of AI is full of promises that are not always kept. I'm surprised that the tool doesn't come with a warning. If an unsuspecting person was to use it on, say, a passport photo then they could get into a lot of trouble. --DanielRigal (talk) 22:55, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You are making major, incorrect changes to these articles with no explanation. "idk", "Ummm", "Hold on", and "Wait for the end result" are not valid explanations for what you are doing. It is also very rude to manually revert someone just to avoid sending the revert notification. If you want to propose such major changes to these articles, you should do the work in your sandbox or the draftspace and then ask at the talk page if there are any concerns about you implementing the changes. The mainspace is not your personal sandbox for tests and mucking about. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:07, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Adamstom.97 Then view the changes yourself; obviously, they are not bad changes, and I am not new here so. Also im obviously trying to fix the article quality like come on Lililolol (talk) 21:11, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well, okay, look up the changes I made. It's great! I guess the only problem is the home media section, but other than that, we're good, right? And about the characters section, what is the point of a separate page if we're going to include all the characters, even minor ones? Lililolol (talk) 21:13, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Waiting! Lililolol (talk) 21:14, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Adamstom.97 Generally, why would any editor have concerns about you implementing the changes if they are good? Lililolol (talk) 21:18, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, holy cow you are impatient. You have sent three messages in less than 10 minutes while I have been trying to respond to you. Are you seriously complaining because it has taken me a few minutes to respond? What is your problem? You say you are not new here but it doesn't seem like it.

As for the topic at hand, you can't just say the changes are "great" and expect me to agree, I clearly have a problem with them or I wouldn't have reverted you. You are making some bizarre changes, including deleting the entire cast section and moving the home media section to the list of episodes. And again, you have made no effort to explain what you are doing. You can't just start making random changes without explanation and get mad when someone objects. If you are doing a full overhaul of the article and it is going to take multiple edits, please follow my suggestion and do your work in your sandbox or the draftspace. That way we can wait until you are finished and see the full result, and then discuss implementing it in the mainspace. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:21, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Adamstom.97 Oops, well, sorry if I sounded impatient! Lol. I thought sending a few small texts would be less overwhelming than a long one.

So, let me explain my changes. I am trying to improve the article's quality to at least Good Article status (maybe Featured Article; I don't think it will pass, but anyway). I used the French Wikipedia article—which has been a Good Article since 2016—as a starting point. I translated some parts and added them to the English version. I also took inspiration from other animated featured articles as references for the final result. I’m not sure if it would be appropriate to name specific pages, but you can look them up yourself. Just to be clear, I didn’t simply copy and paste the French Wiki content as it is. I made structural tweaks and adjustments, referencing other featured English Wikipedia articles.

Regarding my other point—as I mentioned before—what is the purpose of a separate page for the characters if they are all being re-added to the main page? It makes more sense to include only the main characters under the premise section to keep things concise and readable, in line with wiki policies on avoiding excessive detail. As for the home media section, I don't think the list is complete, or at least I'm unsure if it makes sense to include everything. Per MOS:TVPLOT, adding such details is optional for editors, not a strict requirement. So, I didn’t remove the section entirely; I just trimmed it to make it more readable and appealing to a broader audience, not just hardcore fans. The structure I used is similar to that of a mid-importance featured article about another animated show—one that, like this one, was made for kids but also appeals to some adults.

For the release section, I might have added too much information from the French page. I was still in the process of refining it before you reverted my edits, lol. For the premise section, I also took inspiration from the same mid-importance featured article I mentioned earlier, which is about an animated show with 10 seasons. It follows a similar format, providing an overview of the premise without detailing each season. Also, the characters page is linked in the "Further Information" template to avoid redundancy.

And final note, of course, I know that just because one article follows a certain style doesn’t mean another wiki article has to follow the same structure. But I still think this approach makes sense for this particular case. I guess I explained everything? Also, I don't like to use the sandbox—I just don't like it, I don't know why. Lililolol (talk) 17:41, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate wanting to improve the article, it definitely needs work and I myself have thought about similar changes in the past. I'm not sure what to say about you not liking the sandbox, it isn't any different from editing a normal article and it is a useful tool if your changes aren't ready. I myself have been working on some improvements to List of Star Wars: The Clone Wars episodes in my sandbox that I plan to finish there before trying to implement the changes in the mainspace.

You are free to add missing content to Star Wars: The Clone Wars (2008 TV series) from the French article, but I do think the overall structure of the page is mostly fine. The cast section definitely should not be deleted, as there is no proper cast list for this series. Neither of the "main articles" cover what I would expect to see in a TV article per MOS:TVCAST. I don't have a problem with tidying up the premise section, but the episodes table needs to be kept and it should be near the top of the article per MOS:TVPLOT. Whether the home media section is a complete list or not, it belongs in the release section at the main page and should not be moved to the list of episodes. If you did that based on other articles then those are wrong as well and it is a case of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. A good comparison for what the overall structure should look like would be Star Wars: The Bad Batch, which could also do with some expanding but I think is structured really well according to MOS:TV.

It would be good for you to give this kind of detailed explanation in your edit summaries or at the article's talk page before making such major changes. I think it is fair for me to have reverted you and asked for an explanation considering you were making major changes and never indicated in any way what you were doing. Even if your first edit said "Starting some major changes, happy to explain at the talk page" or something like that so other editors knew what was going on. - adamstom97 (talk) 18:00, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Adamstom.97 Hi, I’ve already acknowledged WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS in my previous response. I’m not planning to remove anything from the article, but after expanding it, sections like episode tables and home media might make it too bulky. It could make sense to move them elsewhere, but for now, I’ll leave it as is.

Also, just to note, Star Wars: The Bad Batch is rated C-class, which, in my opinion, is different from articles that are considered good or featured.

Regarding home media placement: the article I took inspiration from—its related episode list—is a featured list that includes episodes/shorts and home media. Home media isn’t a strict requirement, and in some articles, it’s placed in a "Related Media" section rather than the release section. Is there a specific policy about home media placement? If so, please let me know. Lililolol (talk) 21:14, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Some articles put home media in random places, but in my experience the most logical place is in the release section with the broadcast / streaming details. They are all methods of release. The list of episodes should just be listing the episodes and anything specifically related to them (in this case the unfinished episodes belong there too). - adamstom97 (talk) 21:47, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. It appears your talk page is becoming quite lengthy and is in need of archiving. According to Wikipedia's user talk page guidelines: "Large talk pages are difficult to read and load slowly over slow connections. As a rule of thumb, archive closed discussions when a talk page exceeds 75 KB or has multiple resolved or stale discussions." – this talk page is 57.5 KB. See Help:Archiving a talk page for instructions on how to manually archive your talk page, or to arrange for automatic archiving using a bot. I can help you with archiving, just leave a message on my talk page. If you have any unanswered questions, place a {{help me}} notice on your talk page, or go to the help desk. Thank you. - FlightTime (open channel) 21:25, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Lililolol. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or draft page you started, "Scarlet Witch".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:03, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]