https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/api.php?action=feedcontributions&user=162.158.167.120&feedformat=atomexplain xkcd - User contributions [en]2021-03-09T07:08:46ZUser contributionsMediaWiki 1.30.0https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=Talk:2097:_Thor_Tools&diff=168009Talk:2097: Thor Tools2019-01-11T20:17:46Z<p>162.158.167.120: </p>
<hr />
<div><!--Please sign your posts with ~~~~ and don't delete this text. New comments should be added at the bottom.--><br />
<br />
I think the comment about the axis direction is based on how you interpret the terms Best and Worst - either for Thor or those who encounter him. [[User:Ianrbibtitlht|Ianrbibtitlht]] ([[User talk:Ianrbibtitlht|talk]]) 17:15, 11 January 2019 (UTC)<br />
:I agree. That interpretation should be in the explanation instead of the present one.--[[User:Pere prlpz|Pere prlpz]] ([[User talk:Pere prlpz|talk]]) 19:58, 11 January 2019 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Many nail-guns use cartridges filled with a combustible material (gunpowder or similar) rather than a supply of compressed air. A blank load of a .22 rimfire pistol cartridge is typical. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Powder-actuated_tool [[Special:Contributions/50.202.80.200|50.202.80.200]] 18:35, 11 January 2019 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Is there a possibility that the reversed axis suggests an (aero)plane as the worst weapon? Bad taste rules it out I suppose. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.212.179|108.162.212.179]] 18:46, 11 January 2019 (UTC) Nic<br />
<br />
I think a lightning staple/nail gun would be pretty dope...[[User:Linker|Linker]] ([[User talk:Linker|talk]]) 18:52, 11 January 2019 (UTC)<br />
<br />
I've been hit or otherwise injured by most of these, but I do not know of anyone who has been planed, that's how dangerous planes are, everyone knows to be careful. [[User:SDSpivey|SDSpivey]] ([[User talk:SDSpivey|talk]]) 19:17, 11 January 2019 (UTC)<br />
<br />
It's a pity he didn't add "Screwdriver (sonic)" to the chart. [[User:JamesCurran|JamesCurran]] ([[User talk:JamesCurran|talk]]) 19:48, 11 January 2019 (UTC)<br />
<br />
There are some nailguns that don't use compressed air tanks or combustible materials - they have air compressors in them, powered by drill batteries or wall outlets. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.167.120|162.158.167.120]] 20:12, 11 January 2019 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Also, unless that's an electric staple gun, the transcript should say nail gun. Look at how it's being held - as if there's a trigger, not as if there's a big handle on the back. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.167.120|162.158.167.120]] 20:17, 11 January 2019 (UTC)</div>162.158.167.120https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=Talk:2097:_Thor_Tools&diff=168007Talk:2097: Thor Tools2019-01-11T20:12:47Z<p>162.158.167.120: added comment</p>
<hr />
<div><!--Please sign your posts with ~~~~ and don't delete this text. New comments should be added at the bottom.--><br />
<br />
I think the comment about the axis direction is based on how you interpret the terms Best and Worst - either for Thor or those who encounter him. [[User:Ianrbibtitlht|Ianrbibtitlht]] ([[User talk:Ianrbibtitlht|talk]]) 17:15, 11 January 2019 (UTC)<br />
:I agree. That interpretation should be in the explanation instead of the present one.--[[User:Pere prlpz|Pere prlpz]] ([[User talk:Pere prlpz|talk]]) 19:58, 11 January 2019 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Many nail-guns use cartridges filled with a combustible material (gunpowder or similar) rather than a supply of compressed air. A blank load of a .22 rimfire pistol cartridge is typical. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Powder-actuated_tool [[Special:Contributions/50.202.80.200|50.202.80.200]] 18:35, 11 January 2019 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Is there a possibility that the reversed axis suggests an (aero)plane as the worst weapon? Bad taste rules it out I suppose. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.212.179|108.162.212.179]] 18:46, 11 January 2019 (UTC) Nic<br />
<br />
I think a lightning staple/nail gun would be pretty dope...[[User:Linker|Linker]] ([[User talk:Linker|talk]]) 18:52, 11 January 2019 (UTC)<br />
<br />
I've been hit or otherwise injured by most of these, but I do not know of anyone who has been planed, that's how dangerous planes are, everyone knows to be careful. [[User:SDSpivey|SDSpivey]] ([[User talk:SDSpivey|talk]]) 19:17, 11 January 2019 (UTC)<br />
<br />
It's a pity he didn't add "Screwdriver (sonic)" to the chart. [[User:JamesCurran|JamesCurran]] ([[User talk:JamesCurran|talk]]) 19:48, 11 January 2019 (UTC)<br />
<br />
There are some nailguns that don't use compressed air tanks or combustible materials - they have air compressors in them, powered by drill batteries or wall outlets. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.167.120|162.158.167.120]] 20:12, 11 January 2019 (UTC)</div>162.158.167.120https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=Talk:2074:_Airplanes_and_Spaceships&diff=166154Talk:2074: Airplanes and Spaceships2018-11-19T17:56:00Z<p>162.158.167.120: </p>
<hr />
<div><!--Please sign your posts with ~~~~ and don't delete this text. New comments should be added at the bottom.--><br />
Damn, Randall was 3 months late with this comic ;-) --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 15:38, 19 November 2018 (UTC)<br />
<br />
By the time of the first spaceflight, air travel was available to the general public. Where is the space plane today??[[Special:Contributions/108.162.229.28|108.162.229.28]] 16:24, 19 November 2018 (UTC)<br />
<br />
NASA released a video 2 days back - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WeA7edXsU40 <br />
Do you think that's why this comic was uploaded? I would have added it in, but I could use an opinion [[Special:Contributions/162.158.167.120|162.158.167.120]] 17:56, 19 November 2018 (UTC)</div>162.158.167.120https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=2074:_Airplanes_and_Spaceships&diff=1661532074: Airplanes and Spaceships2018-11-19T17:53:59Z<p>162.158.167.120: Yuri Gagarin didnt escape earth</p>
<hr />
<div>{{comic<br />
| number = 2074<br />
| date = November 19, 2018<br />
| title = Airplanes and Spaceships<br />
| image = airplanes_and_spaceships.png<br />
| titletext = Despite having now taken three months longer than the airplane people, we're making disappointingly little progress toward the obvious next stage of vehicle: The Unobtanium-hulled tunneling ship from the 2003 film 'The Core.'<br />
}}<br />
<br />
==Explanation==<br />
{{incomplete|Created by a TUNNELING AIRPLANE-SPACESHIP. Please mention here why this explanation isn't complete. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}<br />
<br />
This comic is pointing out that more time has elapsed since the first spaceship flight, than previously elapsed between the first airplane flight and the first spaceship flight.<br />
<br />
Airplanes and spaceships are often considered to be related vehicles, under the term aerospace, with degrees in aerospace fields often having aeronautics (airplanes) or astronautics (spaceships) tracks. The jump in technology and performance between the first airplane and the first spaceship was enormous: the Wright Flyer had a max speed of 30 mph, and the first flights reached only about 30 feet above ground, with distances of only 120 to 850 feet. In comparison the Vostok 1 mission of Yuri Gagarin reached orbital velocity of 17,500 mph, a minimum altitude of 91 miles (480,480 feet), and traveled once around the earth (about 25,000 miles). This represents an increase in performance of between about 600 and 150,000 times.<br />
<br />
In contrast, although the time since the first spaceflight equals about the same amount of time, performance has not increased much at all. Speeds and altitudes during the Apollo mission were both faster and higher, and distance traveled has increased via space missions that remain in orbit longer, but the overall technology and performance is not much different that that used during the first space mission.<br />
<br />
==Transcript==<br />
:[A timeline is shown with three dots on it. Each dot has a label beneath the dot, and the two intervals between the dots are also labeled, with lines indicating which dots are belonging to that label.]<br />
<br />
:Dot 1: <br />
::December 17, 1903 <br />
::First human airplane flight<br />
<br />
:Dot 2: <br />
::April 12, 1961<br />
::First human spaceflight<br />
<br />
:Dot 3: <br />
::Today<br />
<br />
:Interval 1-2: 57 years 4 months<br />
:Interval 2-3: 57 years 7 months<br />
<br />
:[Caption beneath the frame:]<br />
:Spaceships are now older than airplanes were when we flew our first spaceships<br />
<br />
<br />
{{comic discussion}}<br />
<br />
[[Category:Timelines]]<br />
[[Category:Space]]<br />
[[Category:Comics to make one feel old]]<br />
[[Category:Fiction]]</div>162.158.167.120https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=Talk:2036:_Edgelord&diff=161719Talk:2036: Edgelord2018-08-22T15:29:09Z<p>162.158.167.120: A comment</p>
<hr />
<div><!--Please sign your posts with ~~~~ and don't delete this text. New comments should be added at the bottom.--><br />
<br />
Presumably has something to do with https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=edgelord<br />
[[Special:Contributions/173.245.48.129|173.245.48.129]] 04:37, 22 August 2018 (UTC)<br />
<br />
What is up with the wolverine? Am I missing a joke here? Possibly a reference somewhere else? {{unsigned ip|172.68.34.106}}<br />
: That is a reference to Wolverine, the Marvel Comics character, who has retractable "claws" stowed in his forearms and come out the back of his hands. The claws of an actual wolverine, like others in the family Mustelidae, are permanently extended. [[User:Nutster|Nutster]] ([[User talk:Nutster|talk]]) 12:41, 22 August 2018 (UTC)<br />
: It seems to me like the Wolverine thing is almost a non sequitur. I think a better comparison would be "like calling an engineering student a 'forcelord'" or "calling an astronomy PhD a 'Starlord'", or a pharmacologist a 'Druglord'. -- [[User:Angel|Angel]] ([[User talk:Angel|talk]]) 13:02, 22 August 2018 (UTC)<br />
:: Agree. Update made.[[Special:Contributions/172.68.65.90|172.68.65.90]] 13:19, 22 August 2018 (UTC)<br />
<br />
If you are actually an "edgelord", wouldn't you answer "no" anyway to provoke once again? [[User:Fabian42|Fabian42]] ([[User talk:Fabian42|talk]]) 08:40, 22 August 2018 (UTC)<br />
<br />
I feel like there should be some discussion of what an edge (or hyper-edge) is in graph theory. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.165.22|162.158.165.22]] 10:20, 22 August 2018 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Good that he doesn't call his plumber a shitlord. Might need one again. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.54.75|172.69.54.75]] 11:54, 22 August 2018 (UTC)<br />
<br />
So... is the joke just a half-working pun on "edge", or am I missing something? [[Special:Contributions/172.69.226.119|172.69.226.119]] 14:28, 22 August 2018 (UTC)<br />
Yes <[[Special:Contributions/162.158.167.120|162.158.167.120]] 15:29, 22 August 2018 (UTC)></div>162.158.167.120https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=Talk:2034:_Equations&diff=161437Talk:2034: Equations2018-08-18T03:30:10Z<p>162.158.167.120: A comment saying that he is nerd sniping us all..</p>
<hr />
<div><!--Please sign your posts with ~~~~ and don't delete this text. New comments should be added at the bottom.--><br />
Is the joke that all of the equations are actually wrong/malformed/meaningless but they sort of look like typical equations for that field? {{unsigned ip|172.68.133.66}}<br />
:Sort of. A bit of dimensional analysis would have helped. ;-) --[[Special:Contributions/162.158.91.221|162.158.91.221]] 07:28, 17 August 2018 (UTC)<br />
<br />
He's nerd sniping us all.. ([[Special:Contributions/162.158.167.120|162.158.167.120]] 03:30, 18 August 2018 (UTC))<br />
<br />
Should we add a column with examples of similar correct equations from the respective fields? Sebastian --[[Special:Contributions/172.68.110.4|172.68.110.4]] 09:33, 17 August 2018 (UTC)<br />
:That would definitely tidy up my attempts to provide context for Randall's versions. The challenge then is working in explanations for the correct equations as well as arguing over which examples should be used. [[User:Exxi|Exxi]] ([[User talk:Exxi|talk]]) 09:45, 17 August 2018 (UTC)<br />
<br />
I don't think the part in parentheses about OH in the Chemistry equation explanation is correct. OH- would mean that it's negatively charged and has nothing to do with unpaired electrons of Oxygen. It would add another horror to the equation, though, as it wouldn't be charge preserving anymore. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.88.230|162.158.88.230]] 09:58, 17 August 2018 (UTC)<br />
<br />
"Redshit". Best typo ever. Please keep it. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.54.177|172.69.54.177]] 10:13, 17 August 2018 (UTC)<br />
<br />
;Deep physics equations<br />
The transcript is wrong here, the last letter is not a <math>\mu</math>, but a "u" with a cedilla: u̧. The math parser refuses to render it, though. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.88.230|162.158.88.230]] 05:54, 17 August 2018 (UTC)<br />
:Looks like it. But I don't think that letter exists even. --[[Special:Contributions/162.158.91.221|162.158.91.221]] 07:28, 17 August 2018 (UTC)<br />
:Is this equation a sort of nod to a Theory Of Everything which unifies quantum mechanics and gravity... H-hat (a Hamiltonian, which in quantum mechanics describes the total energy of a system, and usually runs in to problems describing large systems - such as the entire universe - where gravity or spacetime curvature effects matter) *minus* u0 (the relativistic mass of the whole system at time zero ie. the big bang) gives 0 (no energy everywhere always). Since mass is energy (e=mc^2) and mass is also the sole cause of gravity the two theories cleanly collapse together when mass is zero, and figuring out how to extend the theory to other less clean points on the mass axis is obviously a job for less profound physics? I've no ideas to explain the cedilla. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.28|141.101.98.28]] 08:49, 17 August 2018 (UTC)<br />
:It looks to me a little like a parody of the {{w|Wheeler-DeWitt_equation#Hamiltonian_constraint|Wheeler-DeWitt equation}} which (in theory) describes a wavefunction for the entire Universe. [[User:Exxi|Exxi]] ([[User talk:Exxi|talk]]) 09:06, 17 August 2018 (UTC)一<br />
: I'm just thrilled someone found the right character for it. I spent 20 minutes looking for the right u symbol without any luck at all. {{unsigned ip|172.68.143.132}}<br />
Is this poking fun at equation-filled blackboards in movies and cartoons? {{unsigned ip|172.68.254.42}}<br />
:Doesn't seem like it. These equations actually do look like the kinds of equations you would see in these fields. On blackboards in movies you tend to get equations that are pure nonsense. {{unsigned ip|172.68.143.132}}<br />
I think this may also be a reference to Feynman's unworldliness equation, http://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/II_25.html#Ch25-S6 . [[Special:Contributions/108.162.219.220|108.162.219.220]] 17:02, 17 August 2018 (UTC)<br />
<br />
;Table layout at the explanation<br />
That oversized table is really bad layout. We've had this discussion many times before - tables should only be used for small contents. Right now I would run into too many edit conflicts but I'll change it to a proper floating text with small headers for each section. --[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 11:51, 17 August 2018 (UTC)<br />
:Done, looks much more like a real paper... --[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 12:58, 17 August 2018 (UTC)<br />
<br />
;All number theory equation<br />
The explanation for math doesn't seem entirely correct. You can in fact extend the ring of integers (as well as rational and real numbers) with positive and negative infinity, but it won't be a ring anymore. Specifically, the infinities don't have an additive or multiplicative inverse (but 1/infinity = 0); and addition of positive and negative infinity, as well as the product of 0 and either infinity is undefined. However, these properties are not used in the above equation. What we ''can'' use is that <math>\forall n < \infty: n - \infty= -\infty </math>. We would thus have <math>K_n = \sum_{i=0}^{\infty}\sum_{\pi=0}^{\infty}(n-\pi)(i-e^{\pi-\infty}) = \sum_{i=0}^{\infty}\sum_{\pi=0}^{\infty}(n-\pi)(i-0) = \sum_{i=0}^{\infty}\sum_{\pi=0}^{\infty}(n-\pi)i= \sum_{i=0}^{\infty}i\sum_{\pi=n}^{\infty}-\pi= \sum_{i=0}^{\infty}i\cdot(-\infty)=-\infty</math>. Also, how often does one use e and pi in number theory? --[[User:Ycthiognass|Ycthiognass]] ([[User talk:Ycthiognass|talk]]) 12:11, 17 August 2018 (UTC)<br />
:Pi (or any other number) minus infinite is just absurd. You can use the infinite symbol only as a limit but NOT as number in calculations. --[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 12:33, 17 August 2018 (UTC)<br />
::It is not absurd. Adding the rules <math>n+\infty=\infty\text{ for }n>-\infty,n-\infty=-\infty\text{ for }n<\infty, \pm n\cdot\infty = \pm\infty\text{ for }n>0, \pm n\cdot(-\infty) = \mp\infty\text{ for }n>0,\frac1{\pm\infty}=0</math> gives you a consistent theory that is especially useful when talking about infinite sums and integrals. Would you say the term <math>n-\sum_{i=1}^\infty i</math> is absurd? --[[User:Ycthiognass|Ycthiognass]] ([[User talk:Ycthiognass|talk]]) 14:35, 17 August 2018 (UTC)<br />
:::Of course it's absurd. It is <math>\infty-\infty \neq 0</math> because it could be everything between <math>\infty</math> and <math>-\infty</math>. {{w|Infinity}} is a concept describing something without any bound... And, as you can't divide by zero you can't do the same for infinity. --[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 17:24, 17 August 2018 (UTC)<br />
:::One more: It is <br />
::::<math>\sum_{i=1}^\infty a_i = \lim_{n\to\infty} \sum_{i=1}^n a_i.</math><br />
:::When this limit exists, one says that the series is ''convergent'' or ''summable''. Otherwise it's called ''divergent'' and has no solution like this one:<br />
::::<math>\sum_{i=1}^\infty i</math><br />
:::Infinite is NO number! --[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 17:33, 17 August 2018 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Completely separate from the above, it's probably worth noting that i is also a constant, and as such has the same misconception as <math>\pi</math>. Computer scientists are happy using i for loops/summations, but mathematicians prefer using n. Based off that, it's probably another misconception/joke that n is treated as a constant, while known-constants are used as variables. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.246.149|108.162.246.149]] 17:28, 17 August 2018 (UTC)<br />
:There is nothing non-standard about using i as an index variable. Often as part of the series i,j,k. Searching for summation convention will give plenty of examples.<br />
:There are fewer letters than mathematical concepts in need of letters, so most letters are used for multiple purposes. Occasionally this causes difficulty. You can be halfway through a linear algebra problem before you discover you need i for an imaginary number despite already using it as an index. Hilarity ensues. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.74.105|162.158.74.105]] 19:57, 17 August 2018 (UTC)<br />
<br />
;Chemistry equation<br />
OH should have a charge symbol: OH<sup>-</sup>. The actual reaction would be:<br />
<br />
CH<sub>4</sub> + OH<sup>-</sup> + heat -> CH<sub>3</sub><sup>-</sup> + H<sub>2</sub>O<br />
<br />
The methyl group can dissolve in water, and this is presumably happening in water, so this equation can work, just not the one provided by Randell. Reacting longer alkanes with bases is a way to make soaps, but the methyl group would be too reactive to be used this way. [[User:Nutster|Nutster]] ([[User talk:Nutster|talk]]) 13:13, 17 August 2018 (UTC)<br />
<br />
;Fluid Dynamics equation<br />
I believe the fraction 8/23 in the Fluid Dynamics equation is a Randallesque reference to the fractional approximation of pi = 22/7. It's probably not a coincidence that you get 8/23 from 22/7 if you invert it and add 1 to both the numerator and denominator. [[User:Ianrbibtitlht|Ianrbibtitlht]] ([[User talk:Ianrbibtitlht|talk]]) 15:19, 17 August 2018 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:I think that is a bit of a stretch. If Randall wanted to reference the 22/7 approximation, I think he would simply use 22/7 and not 8/23. [[User:Redbelly98|Redbelly98]] ([[User talk:Redbelly98|talk]]) 00:40, 18 August 2018 (UTC)<br />
<br />
I changed a "p" to a Greek "rho". [[User:Redbelly98|Redbelly98]] ([[User talk:Redbelly98|talk]]) 00:40, 18 August 2018 (UTC)<br />
<br />
;Gauge theory equation<br />
<s>I think the transcript is missing a left superscript 0 before the turned xi. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.226.16|172.68.226.16]] 16:50, 17 August 2018 (UTC)</s> Ah no, sorry. False alarm. It's just that Randall writes the xi with a funny tail. The same tail is on the non-turned xi earlier. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.226.10|172.68.226.10]] 16:52, 17 August 2018 (UTC)<br />
<br />
If explainxkcd.com is to make XKCD comics more understandable then this explanation is failing that. I assumed from the beginning that the joke was about the equations being wrong, but the description of the joke is making my head hurt. {{unsigned ip|162.158.106.216}}<br />
:Read the first paragraph: "To someone who knows even a little about the topic, they are clearly very wrong and only seem even worse the more you look at them." Nevertheless the rest sometimes does hurt. See below. --[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 20:28, 17 August 2018 (UTC)<br />
<br />
;All truly deep physics equations<br />
In the description paragraph, the last sentence starting "The principle of least action says allows..." does not scan. If someone can fix this (copy&paste?) error, please delete this comment. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.58.171|162.158.58.171]] 19:33, 17 August 2018 (UTC)<br />
:I edited the sentence slightly to address this issue. [[User:Ianrbibtitlht|Ianrbibtitlht]] ([[User talk:Ianrbibtitlht|talk]]) 20:51, 17 August 2018 (UTC)<br />
<br />
It looks like there is already a section for this above, "Deep physics equations", or am I missing something? [[User:Redbelly98|Redbelly98]] ([[User talk:Redbelly98|talk]]) 00:40, 18 August 2018 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Note that this comics also emphasizes that Randall is more familiar with physics than with chemistry : while most of the equations here require college-level education to grok, the chemistry one is at the very most high-scool-grade. {{unsigned ip|141.101.69.33}}<br />
<br />
;Explanations in general<br />
“Nobody knows if Randall references a horse here” - what?! Because the expression lacks an equal sign; doesn’t represent an equality, it might mean Randall is referencing equines, aka horses?! Is this vandalism, an attempt at a joke, or what? This explanation clearly still needs quite a bit of work! [[User:PotatoGod|PotatoGod]] ([[User talk:PotatoGod|talk]]) 20:14, 17 August 2018 (UTC)<br />
:I've put a header on top here. It's not vandalism but every explanation looks still highly unscientific. I've gave real sources to the most topics at the beginning but the following explanations are mostly bad. --[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 20:22, 17 August 2018 (UTC)<br />
<br />
;Kinematics equations<br />
I fixed an error: Randall's Greek "rho" ''&rho;'', a common symbol for mass density, was incorrectly shown here as ''p'', the common symbol for momentum. The term with the ''&rho;'' is very similar to a term in the Bernoulli equation, and I have changed the explanation to reflect this. [[User:Redbelly98|Redbelly98]] ([[User talk:Redbelly98|talk]]) 00:40, 18 August 2018 (UTC)</div>162.158.167.120