Talk:Kalita (caste)

Observation (March 2011)

This article consider the Kalita as well as other human groups of Assam mostly from a racial point of view. It assumes that Kalitas have been a distinctive group since ever and that their culture is rooted in their racial features. This type of approaches have been discarded since long in anthropology. The author should take more into account the possibility that the composition of human groups is physically and culturally renewed by external contribution, and this happens continuously. The cephalic index does not have any relation to culture.

Unreferenced and unsourced puffery

Almost the entire article is unsourced puffery. Such statements having no valid reference will be removed, unless valid sources are provided. Please stop adding more such content; this does not make any sense. IP contributors and editor(s) specifically editing this article are advised to check WP:RS and WP:V before further editing. Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 19:58, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Kalitas as Kayastha Vs Kayastha Proper in Assam

'Kaltas were originally Kayasthas' is an assumption only which is never proved to the level of reliability. However, there is another caste in assam with the name of 'Kayasth' or simply 'Kayth'. Please refer "The Peoples of Assam" By Bhuban Mohan Das, on page 35, last para. Hence, it needs a mention, in order to avoid confusion. --Mahensingha 11:42, 23 October 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mahensingha (talk • contribs) --Mahensingha 11:45, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Mahensingha, the fact that there is a separate Kayastha community in Assam is well-known. There should not be any concern on your part regarding confusion between the two because of the following reasons. Here, all the theories concerning the origin of the Kalitas must be presented from a neutral point of view without giving undue stress on any particular theory. And, moreover, the sentence which has been quoted from the source, in the lead section, clearly mentions that the Kalitas, according to that theory, were originally Kayathas and later on formed a separate caste altogether; therefore there is no scope for confusion. All the theories are assumption to some extent, we can state the theories without distortion; there is no scope for original research.

You cannot say, "Please go through the whole contents of the Source Book before making any further edit" in the edit summary, it hardly makes sense. If you are adding content to the article, it is your responsibility to add proper citation i.e. you need to specify exact page numbers. If you think you can read an entire book, and summarize it or whatever, that would amount to WP:OR; therefore please be specific and provide relevant page numbers. For example if you cite a source thrice, each citation may refer to a different page no, say one refers to page 35, second refers to pages 101-102, and third may refer to pages 120,290 etc. Also, the references you have provided are incomplete (not as per format), and showing Missing or empty | title= in red. Please rectify the same. Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 19:36, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Its Ok. I understood. Just dont misunderstand that if I have written anything in the Edit Summary, then it was for any individual or for you. Still I am very sorry, if it hurts any one. I or we are here to contribute to the articles on wikipedia and definitely not to develop differences or turn aggressive. At least, I am here to learn a lot by exploring various books and sources alike. There are very limited books on Assam History and the one I found meaningful, Thats why I wrote in Summary. As we know we cant write contents of the whole book/books on to a single wiki article. we are bound to write the article related extracts only and definitely cant go in details exactly as narrated in the book. Whatever, I contributed to the article, is simply the view of the author of the Book and its not Original Research. Still if you find anything objectionable, lets discuss. I will be very happy, if you share your precious knowledge with me. I will be ever grateful to you to make the Assam Related Articles more and more meaningful in order to give them due exposer. Thanx. --Mahensingha 21:12, 23 October 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mahensingha (talk • contribs)

I really appreciate your gesture, as well as your efforts. I would be glad to share knowledge/information with you, and hope we can improve the content of this article. When I edit any article, I keep the Edit Summary meaningful and mention the reasons clearly; similarly whenever I 'll edit this article, I 'll do the same. In case you have any doubt regarding any of my future edit, we can discuss in details here on the talk page; a constructive discussion is most welcome. Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 09:08, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I implemented all your suggestions regarding referencing the contents. The article looks better after your efforts on genuinely sourced edits. Much of the contents are still to be worked upon. I request your attentions towards Language, culture etc. Regards.--Mahensingha 09:21, 24 October 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mahensingha (talk • contribs)

Language, Religion and Culture Suggestion

I find nothing specific to Kalitas in terms of Language, religion or culture as are common to all assamese Hindu people. Please help sourcing the contents or addind the reliably sourced contents. Thanx.--Mahensingha 09:26, 24 October 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mahensingha (talk • contribs)

Language and culture of a particular caste generally depend on the regional language and culture only; these are not caste specific, rather these are region specific. Religious practices hardly vary among upper castes, and again depend on the geographic location or are region specific. Therefore, articles on caste do not generally have these sections. Like in this article, it does not make any sense if we discuss about the Assamese language and culture; if there is something really unique to the caste (like we generally have for tribes), then it makes sense. Otherwise, these sections have no relevance and should be dropped. Rather, the contentious part is Origin and related sections in any article on caste, and we need to ensure neutrality, as well as relevance. Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 22:06, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

I do agree with you, these sections be dropped. If we find any Kalita caste specific social norm or cultural aspect in any reliable source, we may yet give it a place. Now regarding origin, the article mentions all the theories, even in the lead section itself ,but the sources suggest the most common theory is of Kshatriya Origin. Let me assert about my readings that even the Kayastha proper are mentioned as kshatriya in many source books. In Bengali literature the terms "Kshatriya" and "Kayastha" are nearly synonymous and the term "Kalita" means simply a non-Brahmin Aryan. However, let me admit that the Wiki is an international platform where I have observed that Indian identity and India related articles often become victim of racism and regionalism. In my view all humans are great and so all Indians and Assamese. I have no place in my heart to disregard any Indian Caste/Community. Unfortunately, much of the accounts of foreign authors do not do justice to Indians, may be due to their poor understanding of the complex Indian social structure. Hence, I request you to refrain from the accounts of intentional defame of India or Indians. Still, I am eagerly awaiting your views and suggestions with an assurance of acceptance of every genuine neutrality of the article. Regards.Mahensingha 22:50, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Notable Kalitas

Caste, ethnicity, race and religion lists cause lots of arguments in Wikipedia, please follow the general consensus:-
All names added to a list must have verifiable, reliable sources to show that they are a notable enough to be included on the list, which usually requires an article on the English Wikipedia.
In a caste, ethnicity, race or religion list, there also needs to be a clear, specific, reference to show that the person is a member of that caste, ethnicity, race or religion.
A person's last name is NOT sufficient evidence for their inclusion in, or exclusion from, a list, as assumptions based on a name are synthesis - a form of original research which is not allowed.
If the person is alive, their inclusion in any list is also covered by our policies on biographies of living people, so a specific reference, where they state they are a member of the category is required.
Someone stating, or claiming, that someone else is, or is not, a member of a Caste, ethnicity, race or religion, is insufficient.
Some people, such as Amitabh Bachchan, have clearly stated they do not agree with caste or ethnic categorization, as these are divisive. These people should not be included in any such list even after their death.

The current list on this article includes large numbers of names who do not appear to meet the general notability requirements, whist none have a reference specifically stating that they a Kalita. Names without adequate references will be removed. - Arjayay (talk) 16:43, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Castecats

There is a long-standing consensus that we do not categorise biographical articles by caste. For example, see [[1]]. Also note that the linked articles do not even mention the word Kalita. Please adhere to the consensus and do not add any link to biographies as this Article Kalita is about the caste--MahenSingha (Talk) 10:35, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

The word Aryan not to be used. Instead Use Indo-Aryan

Aryan word was used by scientist and the Nazi army to show superior of the population of Europe and western Asia on some irrevelent facts during the 20th century which ruled out to be false. The scientific community at present has replaced the word with "indo-european" and the word "Aryan" is used to describe only the Indo-Aryan language of North india. As Kalita community were from North India and spoke Indo-Aryan languages before entering Assam, they should be called Indo-Aryan people or speakers of Indo-Aryan language and NOT ARYAN as it is linked to Nazi Germany. Penguinnumbers (talk) 18:00, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Since the source clearly states 'Aryan', the article mentions it as it is. As far as sourced statements are concerned, it is not advisable to change the term mentioned in the source. Anyway, here it actually implies Indo-Aryan only, and I have modified the link to Indo-Aryan people now. I hope this addresses your concerns. Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 18:30, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Whether the article is about Kalita (caste) or Kayastha

WP:UNDUE states that-

"Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight mean that articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects. Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all, except perhaps in a "see also" to an article about those specific views."

Now may I ask you Ekdalian that why have you reverted my edit [here], giving your own judgement "Cannot be considered as WP:UNDUE". You could have discussed the matter. But, let me explain on my part that why did I make this edit-

I referred sourced stating the Kalita caste to be high caste Hindu or the the caste next to Brahmins in caste hierarchy except the one which you added.

• 1. Society, Politics, and Development in North East India: Essays in Memory of ...
• 2. Bamboo: The Wonderful Grass
• 3. All India Anthropometric Survey, North Zone: Basic Anthropometric Data, Volume 1; Volume 8
• 4. International Journal of Anthropology, Volume 2, Issue 4
• 5. Discovery of North-East India: Geography, History, Cutlure ..., Volume 2
• 6. Agrarian System of Medieval Assam

and may be many more who talk about Kalitas to be high caste Hindu and next to Brahmins. In few cases the sources include few more castes and definitely not only Kayastha as equivalents to Kalita. My point here was that since the article is about Kalita caste so it shall stress the kalita as major and rest all become minor automatically.

Now we can resolve the issue using one of the following ways-

• 1. Since the article is about Kalita, so be subjective and mention only Kalita. for your POV you can add Kayastha in "See also" and let the Kayastha article state that Kayastha are next to brahmins in hierarchy.
• 2. If you add Kayastha then according to one of the above sources lot many castes too qualify to be added with Kalita and Kayastha next to Brahmin in hierarchy.
• 3. Restore my edit and since all the castes have their own article and the relevant contents be added there only
• 4. Go for the opinion of other editors or third opinion. May be Sitush with his great experience resolve the issue.

I leave everything on your choice. Thanks.--MahenSingha (Talk) 17:26, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

• I really appreciate your gesture. In fact, I should have started the talk page discussion. I hardly have any time right now, I 'll revert back tomorrow and we will definitely arrive at some sort of consensus on the issue. Best Regards, Ekdalian (talk) 19:21, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

• I have checked the references and reverted to your version. Thanks & Regards, Ekdalian (talk) 05:27, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

References

Kalita is not a "caste" but an ethnic group similar to Ahoms or Sutiyas or Morans

Remove the "Caste" word from the title as Kalita is not a caste. The Black Truth (talk) 03:39, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Delete unsourced paragraph

I deleted a paragraph on common surnames, and a few other observations. The entire paragraph is unsourced, and I can find no sources to support the statements Work permit (talk) 16:38, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

July 2019

Sir, I would be obliged if you could inform me the reason behind removing the following content:

But this seems to be a wrongly interpreted conclusion because there is no historical record about the migration of Kalitas during the reign of King Dharmmapala(1070AD-1100AD) of Kamarupa. In the history book "Asamar Buranji", Raibahadur Padmanath Gohain Barua mentioned that the Kalitas are the aborigines of Assam. According to him Narakasura, Bhagadatta, Bajradatta etc. , the ancient kings of Pragjyotisa were forefathers of the Kalitas(Reference 15). The scholars like Dr Dimbeswar Sarma(Reference 16), Dr Pratap Chandra Choudhury(Reference 17) and many others also supported the view of Raibahadur Padmanath Gohain Borooah that the Kalitas are the descendants of Naraka-Bhagadatta.

15. Asamar Buranji by Padmanath Gohain Barua, 4th Edition, Publication Board Assam, 2014, p 4 (Note: First Published-1899 and First Edition, Publication Board Assam-1976).

16. Kamarupa Sasanavali by Dr Dimbeswar Sarma(Ed), Publication Board, Assam, 2nd Edition,2003, p140,141,142,143 (Note: First Published-1981).

17. The History of Civilization of the People of Assam to the Twelfth Century A.D. by Dr Pratap Chandra Choudhury, Published by The Government of Assam in the Department of Historical and Antiquarian Studies, Gauhati, Assam, First Edition, 1959, p 122.

I'm not expert in editing in wikipedia and have little knowledge about internet. But I am worried about the false information given by any author. I always look in to the three most important things- time, place and event, whenever I do study history. So, according to me the above information supplied by me are correct. So, please inform me the reasons for removing these contents. Regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2405:204:B205:7305:87BA:F060:AEDE:C252 (talk) 11:38, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Please read A Statistical Account of Assam Vol 1 and Vol 2. Asura are mythology character. Be scientific not mythical @ 2017 wikitext editor, PHP7 Mobile edit . PerfectingNEI (talk) 20:08, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Respected sir, Mythical common ancestor invented by a human group is of great importance to study the evolution of mankind. During the process of formation of a human society in ancient time, a group of people considered themselves as the descendants of a common mythical ancestor. Also, the mythical character could give many informations, such as the origin and evolution of the human civilization. The mythical character might not exist, but the community formed under the concept of that mythical common ancestor is truth. The mythical character plays important role in determining the culture, religion and many other facts of that community. So, this should be given the historical importance. Please read the following: 1)Traditional societies are often organised into descent groups called "lineages", "clans", and "tribes". Each of these descent groups claims to have a common ancestor, and this ancestry distinguishes the group's members from rest of the population. 2) Thus, a tribe might be a conglomerate of clans who subsequently invented a mythical ancestor to strengthen group unity. [Source: The Genetic or Mythical Ancestry of Descent Grouos: Lessons from the Y Chromosome,PMID:15467979, R Chaix, F Austerlitz, T Khegay, S Jacquesson, M F Hammer, E Heyer and L Quintana-Murci, Am J Hum Genet. 2004 Dec; 75(6): 1113–1116.] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2405:204:B186:5369:7AD0:F90F:933E:BCC4 (talk) 15:58, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Read statistical account of Assam. Kalita claims were also recorded. PerfectingNEI (talk) 16:22, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Again, respected sir, do you know that following fact is based on an obscure mythology that was impossible to happen in the land of Pragjyotisa(Present Assam) during 11th Century AD.

"According to historians like S.L.Barua, Kalitas started migrating from North and East India to Assam during the 11th century rule of Dharmapal."

But why Wikipedia has given place to this false fact in the topic, surprisingly, at the introductory paragraph? It's very much unscientific! Regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2405:204:B186:5369:4D23:47F1:A281:AB34 (talk) 16:25, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Pragjyotishpur is different from Kamarupa. Kamarupa king just accepted that mythology. You should read recent research papers. PerfectingNEI (talk) 16:28, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Read this paper. https://www.academia.edu/22297465/Searching_for_K%C4%81mar%C5%ABpa_Historiography_of_the_Early_Brahmaputra_Valley_in_the_Colonial_and_Post-Colonial_period

And all of his kamarupa related papers. PerfectingNEI (talk) 16:31, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Respected sir, It's a childish way to think Pragjyotisa and Kamarupa as different kingdoms. The ancient inscriptions confirm that both the words Pragjyotisa and Kamarupa represent the same kingdom, like Hindustan and Bharata. I think the author is just trying to be famous by disrespecting the true facts. Also, the author might be from Japan and having no field knowledge of Great Pragjyotisa-Kamarupa. But, sir, I'm from the land of Great Pragjyotisa-Kamarupa. Also, sir, only one author cannot be considered as the knower of true history. Hope Wikipedia will respect the true history, and not just a person's view. Only one book or article can't describe the Greatness of Pragjyotisa-Kamarupa. Regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2405:204:B186:5369:15B8:C129:E3D5:D58E (talk) 17:32, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Is mahabharat real ? Can you prove ? That's just south Indian folk stories . PerfectingNEI (talk) 18:24, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Mahabharata is a Sanskrit epic not South-Indian. Stories in it are from all over the subcontinent. But the core region was in Delhi-Uttar Pradesh region. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 18:28, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Ok , I've no idea about original story. I think south also have their own version. PerfectingNEI (talk) 18:43, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

As it was an epic in Hindu influenced region, there are different versions. There are Malayasian and Indonesian versions too. And probably Central Asian version as well. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 18:46, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Respected sirs,

PerfectingNEI(talk) is trying to divert the topic. I think it's having some problems to respect the concept of mythological common ancestor of human group. Hope Wikipedia will take necessary steps for asking PerfecingNEI(talk) to understand the concept first. Please. Regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 223.179.214.8 (talk) 18:50, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

What is written in those books ? Are those just artificial guess work or proved content ? PerfectingNEI (talk) 19:16, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Respected sir,

King Bhaskaravarma(594AD-650AD) of Pragjyotisa mentioned his ancestry in his Dubi Copper Plate SEAL as(a part only)-

"Maharajadhiraja Sri Pusyavarma, over-lord of Pragjyotisa, a descendant of the lineage of Bhagadatta and Vajradatta born from Naraka,.....". Regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 223.179.213.80 (talk) 19:21, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

It's BhaskarVarman. There is no mention that he is related to Kalita . How is it related to Kalita ? Do research about Maniram Dewan . Just find out when did his ancestors come to Assam ? PerfectingNEI (talk) 19:24, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Kalita ancestors claimed to be descendant of Kshatriya who fled wrath of Parasuram . Read it https://archive.org/details/statisticalaccou01huntuoft PerfectingNEI (talk) 19:27, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

PerfectingNEI,

First please tell me where from Maniram Dewan's ancestor come to Assam? I will answer after your answer.

Secondly, you were disregarding the reality of Mahabharata, and now you are supporting the myth of Parashurama!What's the reason?

Regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 223.179.213.80 (talk) 19:38, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

I neither believe Mahabharat nor Parasuram. What we believe may or mayn't be real. But , Person who believe is reality . That's the difference PerfectingNEI (talk) 19:43, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Most interesting part is you are changing your ancestors words. Anyway , Do research yourself. Why do you believe someone's saying ? Prove or disprove all claims.Your books are just artificial guess work. Anybody can write such books . PerfectingNEI (talk) 19:48, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

PerfectingNEI,

Your words: "It's BhaskarVarman"

Truth:In the inscriptions the name was inscribed as "Bhaskaravarmma",i.e., "भास्करवर्म्मा". The names of all the other kings of the dynasty of पुष्यवर्म्मा contained "वर्म्मा" as suffix title. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 223.179.208.224 (talk) 20:33, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Verma and Varman same meaning. Just like Borok King of Tripura used Debbarma . I'm wasting time on unnecessary topic. Bye PerfectingNEI (talk) 20:51, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Respected PerfectingNEI,

I was just mentioning the true spelling of a word used by those Pragjyotisa Kings. Could you please tell me since whence the Great Kings of Tripura started to use the title "Debbarma"? Regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.56.61.22 (talk) 02:48, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Wrong information about Kalitas:

Before I mention about the manipulation of wonderful history of Kalitas by some Wikipedia editors, let's discuss the meaning of phrase- "It is generally held that".

Question: What is the meaning of "It is generally held that"?

Answer: It means that among the people who claim to know something about the subject, the most widely accepted theory is that which is "generally held". Example: "It is generally held that already during this period Egypt was losing some of its power and dominance." Means: "Most Egyptologists agree that during this period Egypt was losing some of its power and dominance." Quite often this construction is used to introduce a CONFLICTING IDEA that actually contradicts the generally held belief or conviction. After your sentence, ONE COULD WRITE something like: "However, the results of our new research show that Egypt may have been shifting its focus into a different geographical area, and thereby effectively expanding its power."

Source: https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/162792/whats-the-meaning-of-it-is-generally-held-that — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.56.37.35 (talk) 04:34, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

WRONG INFORMATION in Wikipedia about Kalitas: "According to historians like S.L.Baruah, Kalitas started migrating from North and East India to Assam during the 11th century rule of Dharmapal."

Original Content in S L Baruah's book: "It is generally held that the Kalitas came to Assam from upper India during the reign of Dharmapal(c.1095-1120)."

So, it is NOT according to S L Baruah ! Also, she didn't mention any reference to this assumption.

What type of suggestion was mentioned for correction: "But this seems to be a wrongly interpreted conclusion because there is no historical record about the migration of Kalitas during the reign of King Dharmmapala(1070AD-1100AD) of Kamarupa."

Reasons: (1) Already in the suggested sentence [...because there is no historical record about the migration of Kalitas during the reign of King Dharmmapala (1070AD-1100AD) of Kamarupa]. (2) No "reference" to the event is found in the book written by S L Baruah. (3) Inclusion of suggested correction is valid according to research methodology as discussed previously in the context- What is the meaning of "It is generally held that" question.

Other important information about Kalitas in S L Baruah's book that have been KEPT OUT OF SIGHT by the Wikipedia editor:

1. "Some scholars ascribe them Alpine origin, whereas, some others conjecture that they are of Arya stock."[Page15] 2. "According to some Assamese scholars a wave of Alpines also came to Assam before the Aryans and they hold that Narakasur and Bhagadatta, the prehistoric rulers of ancient Assam are Alpines and that the Kalitas, a caste-Hindu community of Assam are Alpines by origin."[Page65] 3."According to B K Kakati, the Kalitas were originally a class or phaid and not a professional caste."[Page16] 4. "It is believed by some that once the Kalitas of Assam were the followers of this religion and there are others who opine that the Baniyas and the Kaivartas, two scheduled caste people of present Assam , were also originally Buddhists".[Page14] 5. "The traditional account of their origin-that they were Kshatriyas who concealed their caste for fear of Parasuram-has been rejected by some scholars of Assam." [Page15]

So, wikipedia editors should maintain the methodology of research works. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.56.45.60 (talk) 13:27, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

caste of assam

https://www.academia.edu/38550206/Service_groups_in_early_K%C4%81mar%C5%ABpa_society_600_C.E_to_1200_C.E PerfectingNEI (talk) 23:08, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Related groups

@Chaipau, Ekdalian, and Homogenie: Aren't we suppose to link Indo-Aryan peoples in the related ethnic group parameter per the article? - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 09:13, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

According to source Kalita (caste) is derived from many groups i.e Tibeto-Burman, Indo-Aryan artisan caste, even Dravidian speaking group which may be the Sut community. Go through the source and apply the links necessary! Homogenie (talk) 09:27, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

@Fylindfotberserk: Added now. Also, this is a very badly written article that seems to have a particular political narrative. Chaipau (talk) 09:29, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Please improve it, i just added the source Homogenie (talk) 09:33, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

@Chaipau: Kalita is not next to Brahmins, it is next to Kayastha, Ganak and Brahman- Homogenie (talk) 10:59, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

@Homogenie: sure. Chaipau (talk) 11:17, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Sorry Fylindfotberserk, I wasn't active on Wikipedia for the last couple of days. It seems that the issue has now been addressed. Thanks, all! Ekdalian (talk) 18:29, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

@Ekdalian: No problem yo! - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 18:45, 16 April 2022 (UTC)