Talk:Savoy Truffle

I really don't think the interpretation of this song is correct. Listen to the lyrics -- it seems (seriously) to be about cunnilingus to me. I have no sources to cite, though, so I will refrain from changing the article until and unless I find some. Might anyone else have evidence on this subject? RobertAustin (talk) 17:31, 8 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

Beatles songs tend to be over-interpreted. John Lennon made of a point of how that irritated him in another White-Album tune, "Glass Onion". (BTW, I myself misinterpreted "The Continuing Story of Bungalow Bill" as an anti-war song. And we all know the fracas over "Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds". Poor John.) (PS: Poetry always seems to be in the eye of the beholder when one lacks all the info. Like that line in Lewis Carrol's Alice stories: "It means what I want it to mean.") RobertGustafson (talk) 07:43, 26 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

I am not sure that the originator of the article about The Beatles song 'Savoy Truffle' is correct just in the information included in the piece leaves out whether or not John Lennon contributed as one of the singer / songwriters and/or if he was not present this 'reader' would like to know, why? No information on John Lennon appears in this piece and the lack of any and all information regarding whether or not he was involved in the writing, playing of, and production of this particular song, "Savoy Truffle" leads one to question the whole of all information that one could call speculative rather than factual. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.80.120.53 (talk) 06:52, 1 January 2012 (UTC)Reply

Listen, I don't know if I am putting this right, but Savoy Truffle is not about Eric Clapton's chocolate addiction. It is about his cocaine addiction. George used chocolate as a cover. -wtk

And your source is... ? --kingboyk 10:36, 26 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

See comment on previous talk section. RobertGustafson (talk) 07:48, 26 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

The song is very clearly about drug addiction. My source is the lyrics. The Beatles had an image to maintain. They weren't going to admit that "Savoy Truffle" was about drugs for the same reason they weren't going to admit "Lucy In the Sky With Diamonds" was about drugs. I know this is a touchy issue, when we have artist statements about meaning, which for the vast majority of the history of music and art we simply don't have. But that doesn't mean we abandon common sense criticism and interpretation of the art for which we DO have such statements. If the song is very clearly about drugs, based on simply reading the lyrics, that view should be represented in a section on the meaning of the song. It would be like having an article on "Trampled Under Foot" that says the song is about a car, because Robert Plant once said that in an interview. Artists can't restrict interpretation of their art just by making a statement about it. -- Alice

The content of Wikipedia is determined by reliable sources, not just one person's personal opinions. Sundayclose (talk) 01:16, 8 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

 

Image:The White Album.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 03:52, 25 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

There's also a rythm guitar track on this song; its performer (be it Harrison or someone else) should be credited in the "Personnel" section. RobertGustafson (talk) 07:39, 26 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

Twice this article refers to somebody named Everett describing something about the song. Who is Everett? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.54.250.11 (talk) 00:39, 2 March 2012 (UTC)Reply

"Conversely, music journalist Robert Fontenot interprets the lines...." His interpretation appears to be the same as Roessner's, not converse to it. Fishlandia (talk) 12:09, 6 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

I disagree. Even though the point's been mentioned that "Ob-La-Di, Ob-La-Da" "was not a song that McCartney's bandmates liked or enjoyed recording", Roessner's interpretation is that Harrison was mocking fans who searched the Beatles' lyrics for hidden meaning, as Lennon had more obviously been doing. But Fontenot reads it as "an expression of distaste for McCartney's composition" – so that's quite different (converse) to the previous reading, no? Somewhere here I've got a source who comes straight out and says it – the line was an obvious dig at McCartney – but unfortunately I've not been able to find it. JG66 (talk) 12:42, 6 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

Regarding what I called the English style, the quotation mark before the period or comma: almost all of the article is that way, so this one stands out and looks wrong. You or someone will need to go back and conform the rest of the article then I guess.

OK, I see now about Glass Onion; thanks.

"Conversely" doesn't mean "differently," it means in reverse of what went previously, so maybe there's another word to use that would convey "different." But, OK. Fishlandia (talk) 15:13, 6 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

Okay, I see what you mean about "conversely". I might change to "alternatively", or better still just skip the editorialisation altogether.

I've got to disagree about the placement of the quotation mark, though. A full sentence is being quoted and a full stop appears in the original. I'd be surprised if there's any inconsistency on this in the article (but I'd welcome hearing about it if there is, of course). Cheers,JG66 (talk) 15:25, 6 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

Okey-dokes. Quotation marks, though - not everything in quotes in the article is quoting part of a sentence. E.g. "...reciprocating on Cream's "Badge", it is one of...." In fact hardly anything is. Fishlandia (talk) 15:38, 6 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

@Liron54: Instead of removing this statement from the article, would you please discuss the issue here (per BRD). I've twice reverted your edits, for which you supplied the puzzling rationales "Ggggg" and "Gggfff"; it's only when I followed your contributions to the Love article that it became clear: "Horns section where from good morning good morning". All your Wikipedia edits seem to be related to specifics of the Love remixes, and you've not supplied a single source when making those changes.

In this article, I've supported the statement that "the track's horn parts were mixed into 'Drive My Car'" with the Zeth Lundy/PopMatters review as a source. As part of the elaborate promotion for the Love album (so I understand), reviewers were supplied with technical information that included some detail on which snippets of Beatles songs ended up in which 2006 mashup. Having said that, I don't want to include information here (or anywhere) that's blatantly false, so I had a couple of listens through headphones. As mentioned on 17 Jan, my ears tell me: "horns @ the end are from G'Morning but over 1st chorus it's Truffle (or perhaps a mix of Truff & G'Morning)". But that's just what I hear – which isn't enough for me to then add a mention in this song article, in "Good Morning, Good Morning" and in Love that portions of the horn parts from both "Savoy Truffle" and "GM, GM" were used. That would be original research.

Lundy says the horns are from "Savoy Truffle". Who exactly says they're from "Good Morning, Good Morning" instead? JG66 (talk) 03:30, 21 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

This review is transcluded from Talk:Savoy Truffle/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Sainsf (talk · contribs) 15:23, 27 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hi! Will review this. Can't resist your article (and exclamations!) Sainsf <^>_{Feel at home} 15:23, 27 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

Nice to see you again, Sainsf. A song about chocolate, at Eastertime – quite appropriate (in some cultures, at least) … JG66 (talk) 18:29, 27 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

@JG66: A bit busy now, I think I will be able to get to this only by the end of this week. Cheers! Sainsf <^>_{Feel at home} 18:38, 27 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

No probs. See you then! JG66 (talk) 00:14, 28 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

@JG66: Managed to jot down all my comments. Here they are:

• What are "eponymous" and "horn"? Repeat the link/explanation in the main text mention.

• Hmm, bit surprised you mention these terms(!). Have reworded to avoid using "eponymous"; "horn section" is now linked in the Lead, and "horn players" in main text also. JG66 (talk) 05:55, 29 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

• I stress on simplification, a common issue at GAN... Sainsf <^>_{Feel at home} 06:32, 29 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

• coinciding with his abandoning the Indian sitar. Is "abandon" not a bit too strong? As if he began detesting the sitar? Later in the article you simply call it a return, a more positive treatment.

• Looking at online definitions, the secondary meaning of "abandon" does fit this context. Have reworded to avoid the term, though, just in case. JG66 (talk) 05:55, 29 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

• Fine Sainsf <^>_{Feel at home} 06:32, 29 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

• We typically don't keep citations in the lead. Make sure that you have not excluded any fact of the lead from the main text. The citations should support everything in the main text.

• Well, for direct quotes we do, of course, also for any statement that might be contentious (even if it's well supported in the main text). But thanks for the reminder – it made me realise that mention of "a long-lasting friendship between [Harrison and Clapton]" was not borne out in the article (which I've now fixed). JG66 (talk) 05:55, 29 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

• Fine Sainsf <^>_{Feel at home} 06:32, 29 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

• I think the quote would look better if placed on the right. At the moment it seems to be diverting the text a bit too much toward the right.

• Can't say I agree, but I've followed your suggestion anyway; in addition, I swapped the chocolates image over to the LH side, to ensure there's a bit of variety, instead of all pics and boxes sitting down only one side of the page. To my mind, the first quote box ("'Savoy Truffle' is a funny one …") looked better on the left because a) it sums up much of what's discussed in this opening section, so it seemed apt that this quote was the first thing the reader sees; and b) the box follows the infobox, where the sheet music image extends the box down on the RH side to end below the Lead paragraphs. Oh well, I appreciate everyone's gone their own perspective! JG66 (talk) 07:57, 29 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

Better. I have often been told not to "divert" attention from the text by keeping images or boxes in the way. Not any rule, though. Sainsf <^>_{Feel at home} 11:17, 31 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

• I think the introduction "the English rock group" for the Beatles would be a good start, just like in the lead.

• Sorry, but why? If the band name was in any way obscure, I might agree, but they're still kinda famous. Not only that, but this is an article about a song by the band, so once a reader decides to move on from the Lead to the main text (if they ever needed that opening qualification "the English rock group"), then surely it's unnecessary. I agree it's easy to assume too much, even about such iconic figures as the Beatles, Bob Dylan, Elvis Presley, but well … JG66 (talk) 07:57, 29 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

Not a strict recommendation, I just like a bit of similarity in the lead and the main text. But I respect your opinion. Sainsf <^>_{Feel at home} 11:17, 31 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

• I like the wording "self-titled", would look good in the lead, where you repeat "The Beatles". Anyone clueless about the album can just hover the cursor over the link.

• Ah, at first I thought you were referring to an alternative to that "eponymous" phrase, in the second para of the Lead. I understand now – you mean reword the Lead's opening sentence. I'm reluctant to do that because I think it's important to establish both The Beatles and the White Album in the reader's mind, particularly before the mention of The Beatles in the Lead's third para. I always feel the same way about how to handle an album's title track: it's very easy to constantly refer to "the title track/song", to the point that a late mention of the song by name (say, in a quote from an album review) can throw a reader. I don't know, maybe I'm underestimating how much alluding to the title (e.g. "their 1968 self-titled album") does ensure that the words are foremost in a reader's mind … Does any of this mean anything to you, about the need to explicitly establish the term The Beatles in the Lead? JG66 (talk) 07:57, 29 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hehe, I understand perfectly! Though I meant "eponymous" to be reworded specifically. I see why you need to say the name directly. Sainsf <^>_{Feel at home} 11:17, 31 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

• During this period of disharmony within the group May surprise the reader who does not know about the background of "Long, Long, Long".

• Yeah, good point. I think it was the delivery that was the problem, rather than the omission of any explanation – would you agree? I've reworded it to be a clear statement, "this period was one of disharmony within the group". Unlike in other White Album songs, "Long, Long, Long" among them, the band's various problems are not that relevant to this particular song; "Savoy Truffle" is more about how Harrison was increasingly finding a more pleasant alternative in 1968. JG66 (talk) 07:57, 29 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

Of course, I don't wish you to recount all the history. Looks better. Sainsf <^>_{Feel at home} 11:17, 31 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

• Do we really need a link for chocolate? You did not link it in the lead did you?

• Thanks, I've removed the link. JG66 (talk) 07:57, 29 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

• I would like to have a few words added on who Ravi Shankar is.

• Added words to introduce him, but it meant I also had to split the sentence in two. JG66 (talk) 07:57, 29 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

No trouble. Sainsf <^>_{Feel at home} 11:17, 31 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

• about which Harrison and Lennon were openly critical Could be clearer on what "about" is; I believe it refers to the composition, but it also seems possible that the two were critical of and disagreed with Fontenot's view.

• Yes indeed. Have clarified the point now. JG66 (talk) 08:21, 29 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

• Pastiche could be linked.

• And it now is! Thanks, JG66 (talk) 08:22, 29 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

• 'In his book Revolution in the Head, Should the year not be mentioned here?

• I'd think not, because MacDonald carried out various revisions on his original (1994) text and it's fair to say that anything in his book "lives on". That's a different situation from, say, Rob Sheffield in The Rolling Stone Album Guide, because that's clearly the 2004 edition of the guide – previous editions had completely different text and contributors. JG66 (talk) 10:10, 29 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

I see. Sainsf <^>_{Feel at home} 11:35, 31 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

• Link psychedelic.

• Done. I'd not done it before because I know linking in quotes should be done very sparingly, if at all. JG66 (talk) 10:10, 29 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

There is no trouble in linking clearly difficult terms in quotes. Sainsf <^>_{Feel at home} 11:35, 31 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

• music STILL hasn't caught up to it Any special reason for the special "still"?

• I reduced the word to small caps simply because it's not an acronym. Perhaps that's not necessary, or correct, thinking about it now. Happy to reinstate the regular-size caps if you want …? JG66 (talk) 10:10, 29 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

As you like. Sainsf <^>_{Feel at home} 11:35, 31 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

• Images Can we add an image or two more?

• Look, I'd love to, although I wouldn't want to add anything for the sake of it. (At the time, I was slightly embarrassed when adding the chocolates image – seemed kinda trivial!) I was hoping to find a generic shot of a jazz, rock or R&B horn section, but I couldn't see anything suitable. Nothing good at Commons for Harrison or Clapton during this particular era. And it's not as if any of the cover artists stand out for their association with the track (i.e. compare with Long, Long, Long, where both Elliott Smith and Jim James were obvious contenders). I'll certainly keep looking, though. JG66 (talk) 10:10, 29 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

That should be all. Again a melodious delicacy! Sainsf <^>_{Feel at home} 06:04, 28 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hey, thanks Sainsf! I was just about to take a break myself actually … Should be able to get down to this in a few hours, I hope. Cheers, JG66 (talk) 07:02, 28 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

Been through the article and addressed a lot of the above. Too tired right now to write responses – back soon, though! JG66 (talk) 16:55, 28 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

@JG66: This article is ready to be a GA. Happy to promote this. Sainsf <^>_{Feel at home} 11:35, 31 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

@Sainsf: Great news, thanks so much. Nice working with you again – and I appreciate your eye for spotting where I possibly assume a reader's already armed with a healthy level of knowledge! Best, JG66 (talk) 11:01, 1 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

JG66, I try to be the lamest reader to give the best review! Sainsf <^>_{Feel at home} 11:08, 1 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

Joking aside(!), it's great that you do. That concern you had about "During this period of disharmony within the group" was spot-on, for example. Yet most of the frequent music-article reviewers probably wouldn't question it. JG66 (talk) 11:27, 1 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

I've had a good look at this issue, and figured it was worth compiling all I've found, to explain how I've then handled instrumental credits for the song, under Recording and particularly Personnel.

Mark Lewisohn clearly states in The Complete Beatles Recording Sessions that "The eight-track tape does not reveal any role for John Lennon on 'Savoy Truffle' at any stage of its recording." Lewisohn also says that Starr had left for a family holiday in Sardinia and therefore the song's percussion overdubs were done without him. Despite the fact that most authors usually treat Lewisohn's books as prime source material, the likes of Walter Everett and Bruce Spizer appear to ignore these points about Lennon and Starr's nonattendance, and credit each of them with contributions to "Savoy Truffle" when it's clearly impossible. This is what each of the sources give for the song's credits (omitting the horn section):

• Ian MacDonald, Revolution in the Head: Harrison double-tracked vocal, lead guitar; McCartney bass; Starr drums, tambourine; Chris Thomas organ, electric piano
• Walter Everett, The Beatles as Musicians: Harrison lead vocal (x2), electric piano, lead guitars (Fender Telecaster) Lennon rhythm guitar (Epiphone Casino) McCartney bass Starr drums; other instrumentation: two organ parts, tambourine
• Bruce Spizer, The Beatles on Apple Records: Harrison lead vocal, electric piano, lead guitars (Fender Telecaster) Lennon electric guitar (Epiphone Casino) McCartney bass Starr drums; other instrumentation: organ, tambourine and bongos – all recorded in Starr's absence
• Kenneth Womack, The Beatles Encyclopedia: Harrison vocal, Fender Telecaster, Hammond organ McCartney Rickenbacker 4001S Starr drums, tambourine Chris Thomas Fender Rhodes Electric Piano
• John Winn, That Magic Feeling: The Beatles' Recorded Legacy, Volume Two, 1966–1970: states that Lennon was absent from sessions held over 3–7 October, then lists instrumentation for basic track on 3 October as rhythm guitar, bass and drums; with 5 and 14 October overdubs: Harrison lead vocal (with ADT), lead guitars; McCartney harmony vocal, bass; someone ("not Starr") tambourine, bongos; Chris Thomas electric piano, organ
• Jean-Michael Guesdon & Philippe Margotin, All the Songs: The Story Behind Every Beatles Release: Harrison vocal, lead guitar (x2); McCartney bass, backing vocal?; Starr drums, tambourine, bongos ('inaudible'); Chris Thomas organ?, electric piano? – the authors' inclusion of question marks reflects their uncertainty over particular credits; they also add mention of a brief fill on acoustic guitar at 0:36 per Lewisohn (from the latter's Chronicles, I assume)
• Kit O'Toole, song article for Something New! website: mentions Lennon's absence on 3 October and lists basic-track instrumentation as lead guitar, bass and drums; then, for 5 October overdubs, Harrison lead vocal, McCartney harmony vocal; followed on 14 October, without Starr's participation, by second electric guitar, organ, bongos and tambourine; O'Toole adds: "One debate still rages: did coproducer Chris Thomas play the organ ... or did Harrison? Some reports have Harrison originally playing the electric piano, which was eventually replaced by Thomas's organ and piano parts."

It's a bit of a mess, in other words. (Quick aside: I'm surprised by the mentions of Harrison on only Fender Tele. I'd say that, apart from the mid-song solo, all the parts are played on his treasured Les Paul [a gift from Clapton]. He and a lot of sources say that this was his main guitar on the White Album sessions, at least from August '68 onwards; before then, it was his red Gibson SG. Anyway.)

I normally trust Everett's ears, in that he bothers to actually listen to a song, and identifies each instrument as it drops in. So, he hears (correctly, imo) that there are two lead guitar parts on top of the rhythm guitar, and that there are two organ parts combining to create the overall, swampy effect. But, of course, when he assigns credit for the individual contributions, Everett seems ignorant of who was and who wasn't in the studio at the time. O'Toole and Guesdon & Margotin reflect the confusion about the keyboard parts. What I've tried to do in the most recent edits is to keep things simple under Recording: list the specific 14 October overdubs and say that Starr was absent; mention that there are two organ parts, and that Thomas and Harrison have each been credited as an organ player on the track, depending on the source. That outlines the areas of uncertainty among the sources, without the reader becoming bogged down in specifics. Then, under Personnel, I've gone with Winn and Womack as main sources, with a note to explain how they differ over the percussion and organ credits. In the list, Harrison and Thomas are each credited for organ, in line with Everett's identification of two parts on the instrument. JG66 (talk) 06:11, 13 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

The last two paragraphs of this section are problematic. They open with the phrase "I believe that...," but they're not presented as a quote - in fact, there is no citation at all. In the end, it comes across as simply the personal opinion of the Wikipedian who wrote them - which is definitely not encyclopedic. PurpleChez (talk) 20:51, 13 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

You're quite right. I've removed the two paragraphs, which should never have been added in the first place.

It previously said on the page that Ringo Starr played the tambourine on this song. But the information was recently changed to "Uncredited". I'm not sure why that is, but what I do know is that now there's no proof that a member of the Beatles played the tambourine. And therefore the credit should be moved to the "Additional musicians" section, unless some information is added that confirms that a member of the Beatles played it. ― C.Syde (talk | contribs) 03:47, 25 February 2019 (UTC)Reply

No longer credited to Starr is in keeping with description in the main text: "With Starr away in Sardinia, the overdubs consisted of another lead guitar part by Harrison, and organ, tambourine and bongos, although the latter contribution does not appear in the final mix." Ian MacDonald was clearly guessing and unaware that Starr was not present at the 14 October session.

Not listed under Additional musicians because Lewisohn always mentions when outside contributors were present (because EMI kept written records of their presence in order to pay them) yet he mentions no musician other than the Beatles at the 14 October session. In other words, there's "no proof" that an additional musician was at the session and played the tambourine. JG66 (talk) 04:21, 25 February 2019 (UTC)Reply

Ah, right. ― C.Syde (talk | contribs) 02:06, 1 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

Apparently, Roessner considers "O-bla-di-bla-da" a mispronunciation of the title, when in fact, it's the same pronunciation McCarney uses for the phrase at the end of the song. It's not a mispronunciation of the title; it's the correct pronunciation of a verbatim quote from the lyrics. Roessner's interpretation collapses under the weight of his own error, and should probably be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1000:B03C:9EE:8CCE:DF27:4463:C302 (talk) 17:41, 31 August 2019 (UTC)Reply

The song title is "Ob-La-Di, Ob-La-Da" and in "Savoy Truffle" Harrison sings "We all know Ob-La-Di-Bla-Da", so Roessner's right. Just because McCartney (and Lennon) sing the same phrase right at the end of "Ob-La-Di, Ob-La-Da", after singing the true title many times in that song, doesn't negate Roessner's point at all – Harrison's still mispronouncing the title. JG66 (talk) 05:21, 1 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

I agree with the original comment. That phrasing is in the song as written, and there's no reason (or at least, no reason is given) to assume that Harrison is referring to the title and not to that lyric. He's not "mispronouncing" it if that's not what he's referencing to begin with.

Looking at the article on that song, it would seem that if anyone mispronounced anything, it was McCartney who did so in the original lyric, probably just because it scanned better. In any case, that article makes no mention of it. Richard K. Carson (talk) 00:16, 26 August 2022 (UTC)Reply

The article references music critic "Ian MacDonald", but following the link provided leads you to a snippet on music critic Ian MacCormick. Typo?? 2605:8D80:525:F21F:85C2:C595:569E:7E60 (talk) 11:06, 5 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

He published under MacDonald (refer to Ian MacDonald). Tkbrett (✉) 13:04, 5 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

I would like to note that on the Beatles Bible it says that Paul McCartney played tambourine but I'm not sure if Wikipedia credits the Beatles Bible as an official source. Minemaster1337 (talk) 23:53, 23 November 2022 (UTC)Reply

As a fan site, Beatles Bible is not considered a reliable source. I'm not sure where Joe Goodden got that information anyway – the confusion is detailed on in the personnel section of this article in a note. Tkbrett (✉) 00:01, 24 November 2022 (UTC)Reply