Piledhigheranddeeper

Apparently in 2011 you made this addition in the Etymology section of Wijiji to comment on the name (but at first glance it looks like a comment on its original form Díwózhiishzhiin):

The name may be the word with the most dotted letters in a row.

Do you have any particular source saying this, or is it an uncited observation? --TangoFett (talk) 22:45, 3 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

I believe this was in the Encyclopedia of Misinformation (this was over a decade ago), but would have to check. --Piledhigheranddeeper (talk) 21:37, 4 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

 

On 8 January 2022, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Hardwick and Woodbury Railroad, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the fortunes of the Hardwick and Woodbury Railroad were inextricably linked to those of the Woodbury Granite Company? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Hardwick and Woodbury Railroad. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Hardwick and Woodbury Railroad), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

 — Amakuru (talk) 12:02, 8 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

 

On 8 January 2022, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Woodbury Granite Company, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the fortunes of the Hardwick and Woodbury Railroad were inextricably linked to those of the Woodbury Granite Company? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Hardwick and Woodbury Railroad. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Woodbury Granite Company), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

 — Amakuru (talk) 12:02, 8 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

You added a citation needed tag, with the text "how was a P&W train in Antrak's track?". It is clear that you did not actually read the article, or you would have seen the text in the section above the sentence you tagged that states, "The company reached an agreement in 1996 for trackage rights over the Northeast Corridor between New Haven and the New York and Atlantic Railway's Fresh Pond Junction yard in Queens. The Providence and Worcester uses these trackage rights to haul stone between its connection with the Branford Steam Railroad and New York City." The company also has trackage rights from New Haven east into Providence, Rhode Island. Please do not be this careless with tagging articles in the future. Thank you. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 00:37, 14 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

And the citation, which was the real point? Ah, I see, quietly added. --Piledhigheranddeeper (talk) 02:09, 14 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

This article is (theoretically) a biography, but it begins with its subject's joining the navy. Other than the date/place, there is nothing about his birth, parents, education, etc. Surely at least some of this is known, as his birthdate is. --Piledhigheranddeeper (talk) 02:29, 10 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

@Piledhigheranddeeper: I found information about his parents, but nothing about his life before joining the navy at 14. Apparently he dropped the "de" when enlisting (says a note in the edition of his journals that has nothing about his early life). —Kusma (talk) 17:30, 10 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

Well, that's a start! Keep up the good work! --Piledhigheranddeeper (talk) 18:17, 10 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

You seem to miss the point of a dangling modifier (a.k.a. dangling participle), as in History of the Jews in Hong Kong. The text read: "As a major financial centre, much of Hong Kong's Jewish community is temporary in nature, largely consisting of expatriates from countries with much larger Jewish populations, such as Israel, United States, France, and other countries." The modifier, "As a major financial center", modifies the subject of the sentence. The subject of the sentence is "Hong Kong's Jewish community". However, HK's Jewish community is NOT "a major financial center"—HK itself is. So the modifier of this sentence doesn't modify the subject, which is an error. Changing the modifier so that it does modify the subject corrects the error. That's what I did. It's not about clarification; it's about grammar. I'd be happy to explain further if you like. --Piledhigheranddeeper (talk) 16:00, 16 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

@Piledhigheranddeeper - Thanks, it makes sense. However I'm still not too sure about starting a sentence with "As the city is a.." when the sentence before ends with "..on the city". The word "city" would be repeated too much. — Golden ^{call me maybe?} 16:18, 16 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

One could also revise the sentence to read "As Hong Kong is a major financial centre, much of the territory's [or another term] Jewish community is temporary in nature, largely consisting of expatriates from countries with much larger Jewish populations, such as Israel, United States, France, and other countries." There are several ways to do this, the example is only an example. --Piledhigheranddeeper (talk) 19:05, 16 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

Precious

Nine years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:47, 25 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

Truly, what a long, strange trip it's been! But thank you very much. Piledhigheranddeeper (talk) 17:45, 28 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

Greetings. I took to consolidating the refs on Claudia Octavia and I'm concerned that I might've stepped on your toes. I wish you could take a look at the page to see any possible errors. I received messages that many cite errors were left, although I can't see them. In any case, I have no problem with my edit can be reverted; in hindsight, putting too much in one edit might have been a mistake I regret. Apologies for any inconvenience caused. (Edit: I have just learned that my ability to be online the next two days might be uncertain, hence why I'm asking you this.) EdgarCabreraFariña (talk) 21:42, 8 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited William Henry Furness III, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page South Pacific.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:24, 3 September 2022 (UTC)Reply

Apologies for the deletion - I was trying to click the thanks button and hit the wrong flaming link! - Cheers SchroCat (talk) 16:43, 22 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

No probl'm, blala'! ~ Piledhigheranddeeper (talk) 16:46, 22 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

In this edit, you added the phrase "in order to poison the fields and prevent a resurgence" to the lead, where it is followed by a reference to Ridley's article. In fact, Ridley's article does not say that, and the article makes clear that this was a ritual and symbolic practice which probably had no practical purpose. What's more, the article is about salting cities, not agricultural fields, and anyway it would have been impossible to transport and spread sufficient salt to have any effect on agricultural fertility. This has all been discussed extensively in Talk:Salting the earth. --Macrakis (talk) 23:12, 18 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

This edit was both unsourced and wrong. The right of way remains largely visible, you can still see the causeway between Wickford and Wickford Landing, and the old Wickford Junction turntable is still intact. Heppner's book supports this. Don't add unsourced things to articles, and really don't add unsourced things that are also blatantly wrong. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 18:02, 1 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

That seems like "little" remains. When performing my own investigation (which is WP:OR, of course), I observed just a shade of embankments, roadbed, etc. I made a note and went off in search of an authoritative cite. You beat me to it (16 minutes!), and came to a different conclusion on a matter of opinion. I don't think flaming me ("nonsense") is the appropriate response. See Wikipedia:No personal attacks. Piledhigheranddeeper (talk) 18:26, 1 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

If you think that's a personal attack, you have no idea what WP:NPA actually says. While I'm glad you found the subject of the article interesting, you've been here long enough to know that you don't add original research to articles, especially to something that is actively on the main page. There's enough OR in rail articles on Wikipedia already without you adding more. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 20:58, 1 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

Which I was looking for a cite, so it would NOT be OR; you were simply a mite faster with your version. Please pay attention to the whole post, and refrain from denigrating differences of opinion. Piledhigheranddeeper (talk) 22:04, 1 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

Please do not do this to the day's featured article. If you spot a problem, fix it; if you're not sure how, use the talk page. Drive-by tagging is disruptive and does nothing to help the article. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 09:49, 6 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

Once again, somebody got to the fix before I did. And the article is better because of it. Piledhigheranddeeper (talk) 16:23, 6 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

What I can’t do is spend hours looking at a computer screen.

Hello Piledhigheranddeeper

I recently commented on the first paragraph of “Napoleon Leading the Army over the Alps”. Only later was I able to read your 2021 remark in the same vein. Since then, having looked at your user page I’ve noted that we think alike in many ways. Most of my minor edits are described as “redundant word“; the most recent I discovered was “near proximity”.

So you might like to take a look at the recent discussion about the introduction to “Caste”. It drew the response that the first paragraph of this feature article had been worked out over many years. But at least some flexibility seemed possible. Twice before, I have come across reactions along the lines of “this is a feature article”, implying (a) I own it, (b) it is perfect, and (c) it cannot be changed, never mind improved.

While I am well behind you in number of edits and Wiki-longevity, I have also been through phases, from early enthusiasm to obsession, to frustration followed by withdrawal. I am now trying to be very selective in what I edit. I have learned that exact quotations can only be challenged for relevance, not content. Sadly, I have also learned that “not my problem!“ is my best response to many articles, although I try to leave some kind of note. Perhaps I will eventually get around to creating one or two articles which were my goal in the first place.

Humphrey Tribble (“Humpster”) Humphrey Tribble (talk) 04:00, 13 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

Yes, the issue of ownership is a knotty one. People who think that every drop of their golden prose is so perfect that they cannot brook the slightest contamination by someone else's words are quite something, are they not? (I am especially amused by some of the excuses they use.) But Wikipedia, like the world, is made up of a vast array of characters, and we must get along with them, or at least tolerate them. But I do understand periodic withdrawal. Piledhigheranddeeper (talk) 21:26, 20 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

 

Ten years ago, you were found precious. That's what you are, always. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:48, 25 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

Why, thank you very much! I do what I can, and you're pretty awesome yourself. --Piledhigheranddeeper (talk) 21:22, 26 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited The Rivalry (Lafayette–Lehigh), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page New York.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:11, 7 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

Can't have that! Piledhigheranddeeper (talk) 14:32, 7 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

The book needs to be formatted properly and given a page number. LittleJerry (talk) 16:43, 7 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

You reverted an edit made on grounds of an unclear antecedent with "'After suppressing a minor conflict in Wales in 1276–77, Edward responded to a second one in 1282–83 with its conquest': It is not unclear."

A pronoun should refer to the preceding noun (the antecedent, which means "going before"). Here, the pronoun in question is "its". The preceding noun is "one", itself a reference to "conflict". However, the "its" actually refers to Wales (what was conquered), which is not the preceding noun. Hence the insertion of another noun to break the bad antecedent. Piledhigheranddeeper (talk) 18:57, 7 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Piledhigheranddeeper I see your point. Personally I do not see the confusion but you should go ahead and do as you see fit. I still am not sure if Wales could be called a "country" here, though. Apologies. Unlimitedlead (talk) 19:00, 7 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

What would you prefer to call it? Principality? Land? Piledhigheranddeeper (talk) 19:01, 7 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

Honestly I have no idea. The safest option would be to call it either "Wales" or "it". Unlimitedlead (talk) 19:03, 7 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

Will cogitate. Piledhigheranddeeper (talk) 19:25, 7 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Hang 'Em High, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page New Wave.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:45, 13 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

Hi Piledhigheranddeeper, I work for Hamilton E. James and have a disclosed COI. Mr. James was recently appointed to Joe Biden's President's Intelligence Advisory Board, and is a strong supporter of the president. Based on your interest in editing President Biden's page, I am hoping you will check out my edit request on his Talk page. Thank you! KWray (talk) 14:05, 31 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

I have replied to your question on the Atlantic City Talk Page, check it out. 🙂 Over5help550 (talk) 21:46, 27 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

Do you have any objections to me reverting the addition of quotation marks around this for List of tinclad warships of the Union Navy? The sourcing on this topic essentially never places "tinclad" in quotations. Hog Farm _Talk 02:33, 29 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

I'd want to set it off (as a new and uncommon term, not to mention a key term in the title of the article), but have no particular love of quotation marks. Would boldface work for you? Piledhigheranddeeper (talk) 10:54, 29 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

Yes, I think bolded would be preferable. Hog Farm _Talk 01:38, 30 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

  Hello Piledhigheranddeeper! We welcome and appreciate your contributions, such as Gerald J. Bakus, but we regretfully cannot accept copyrighted material from other websites or printed works. This article appears to contain work copied from https://dornsife.usc.edu/news/stories/in-memoriam-gerald-bakus-79/, and therefore to constitute a violation of Wikipedia's copyright policies. The copyrighted text has been or will soon be deleted. While we appreciate your contributions, copying content from other websites is unlawful and against Wikipedia's copyright policy. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators are likely to lose their editing privileges.

If you believe that the article is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under license allowed by Wikipedia, then you should do one of the following:

• Have the author release the text under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 License (CC BY-SA 4.0) by leaving a message explaining the details at Talk:Gerald J. Bakus and send an email with confirmation of permission to "permissions-en wikimedia.org". Make sure they quote the exact page name, Gerald J. Bakus, in their email. See Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for instructions.
• If you hold the copyright to the work: send an e-mail from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en wikimedia.org or a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation permitting re-use under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 License and GNU Free Documentation License, and note that you have done so on Talk:Gerald J. Bakus. See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for instructions.
• If a note on the original website states that re-use is permitted "under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License (CC BY-SA), version 4.0", or that the work is released into the public domain, or if you have strong reason to believe it is, leave a note at Talk:Gerald J. Bakus with a link to where we can find that note or your explanation of why you believe the content is free for reuse.

It may also be necessary for the text to be modified to have an encyclopedic tone and to follow Wikipedia article layout. For more information on Wikipedia's policies, see Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.

See Wikipedia:Declaration of consent for all enquiries for a template of the permissions letter the copyright holder is expected to send.

Otherwise, you may rewrite this article from scratch. If you would like to begin working on a new version of the article you may do so at this temporary page. Leave a note at Talk:Gerald J. Bakus saying you have done so and an administrator will move the new article into place once the issue is resolved.

Thank you, and please feel welcome to continue contributing to Wikipedia. Happy editing! — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 00:43, 11 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

  Hello Piledhigheranddeeper! We welcome and appreciate your contributions, such as John S. Garth, but we regretfully cannot accept copyrighted material from other websites or printed works. This article appears to contain work copied from <https://test1.usc.edu/7693/USC-BIOLOGIST-EXPLORER-JOHN-GARTH-DIES/> (archive) and <https://academic.oup.com/jcb/article/26/2/262/2194894?login=false>, and therefore to constitute a violation of Wikipedia's copyright policies. The copyrighted text has been or will soon be deleted. While we appreciate your contributions, copying content from other websites is unlawful and against Wikipedia's copyright policy. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators are likely to lose their editing privileges.

If you believe that the article is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under license allowed by Wikipedia, then you should do one of the following:

• Have the author release the text under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 License (CC BY-SA 4.0) by leaving a message explaining the details at Talk:John S. Garth and send an email with confirmation of permission to "permissions-en wikimedia.org". Make sure they quote the exact page name, John S. Garth, in their email. See Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for instructions.
• If you hold the copyright to the work: send an e-mail from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en wikimedia.org or a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation permitting re-use under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 License and GNU Free Documentation License, and note that you have done so on Talk:John S. Garth. See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for instructions.
• If a note on the original website states that re-use is permitted "under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License (CC BY-SA), version 4.0", or that the work is released into the public domain, or if you have strong reason to believe it is, leave a note at Talk:John S. Garth with a link to where we can find that note or your explanation of why you believe the content is free for reuse.

It may also be necessary for the text to be modified to have an encyclopedic tone and to follow Wikipedia article layout. For more information on Wikipedia's policies, see Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.

See Wikipedia:Declaration of consent for all enquiries for a template of the permissions letter the copyright holder is expected to send.

Otherwise, you may rewrite this article from scratch. If you would like to begin working on a new version of the article you may do so at this temporary page. Leave a note at Talk:John S. Garth saying you have done so and an administrator will move the new article into place once the issue is resolved.

Thank you, and please feel welcome to continue contributing to Wikipedia. Happy editing! — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 01:33, 11 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

This is your fourth known copyright violation - the others being Hardwick and Woodbury Railroad and Woodbury Granite Company (warned two years ago). With 40,000 edits and 16 years tenure, you should know better. Therefore:

 

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for violating copyright policy by copying text or images into Wikipedia from another source without evidence of permission. Please take this opportunity to ensure that you understand our copyright policy and our policies regarding how to use non-free content.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

I will also be opening a Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigation. MER-C 11:56, 19 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

I wish to re-write. I apologize for any errors I may have made; I was not trying to steal others' work. I have noted in the past that the copyright-catcher seems somewhat hypersensitive (it flagged "the Town of Hardwick", for example). Piledhigheranddeeper (talk) 18:16, 19 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

This is not about any individual article. I am concerned about the pattern of behavior, which needs to stop. You will need to convince that you will not create any more copyright problems using the unblock process before you will be permitted to rewrite the existing ones. MER-C 03:26, 20 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

Convince whom? Piledhigheranddeeper (talk) 12:32, 21 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

An uninvolved administrator via the {{unblock}} template. — SamX [talk · contribs] 16:15, 21 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

 

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Piledhigheranddeeper (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

After a period of penance, I wish to resume editing. I have taken the warning to heart and shall not be starting new articles, and will pay particular attention to wording and themes when editing henceforth. Piledhigheranddeeper (talk) 03:26, 30 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Decline reason:

This has nothing to do with why you are blocked. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 05:37, 30 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

 

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Piledhigheranddeeper (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Perhaps I misunderstand. It seems to me that the block is because I have too-closely paraphrased source material (always citing it) in four new articles. Not trying to steal work, but not careful enough. Thus I have resolved to watch the wording and themes more carefully in future work, so as to avoid this situation hereafter. Piledhigheranddeeper (talk) 7:45 am, Today (UTC−5)

Decline reason:

I'm sorry, but this vague assurance is not sufficiently convincing that your copyright problems will not continue. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 16:39, 30 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

 

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Piledhigheranddeeper (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I believe I understand the issue and I will pay close attention and undertake not to do it again.

Decline reason:

This is insufficient. If you believe that you understand the issue, you must demonstrate that to us- as copyright issues potentially put Wikipedia in legal jeopardy, we can't just take your word for it. You will need to describe in your own words what Wikipedia's license is, what copyright is, and when/how to properly use copyrighted content on Wikipedia. 331dot (talk) 08:51, 21 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

 

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Piledhigheranddeeper (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I understand that much of the material in circulation is copyrighted, and that it may not be duplicated without incurring the risk of legal consequences. I understand that material in Wikipedia may not be taken from copyrighted material without permission of the holder of the copyright. I understand that some copyright holders share their rights freely, but some do not, and that without such sharing (or permission), this material should not be used. I undertake not do do that.

Decline reason:

In order to lift the block, we need to be certain that you understand how copyright works on Wikipedia. To allow the reviewing administrator to assess your understanding, please respond to the following questions in your next unblock appeal, explaining in your own words:

• What is copyright?
• How is Wikipedia licenced?
• Why is copyrighted content not allowed on Wikipedia?
• Under what circumstances can we use copyrighted content?
• How do you intend to avoid violating the copyright policy in the future?

Your answers will enable us to establish whether or not you should be unblocked. Yamla (talk) 13:12, 29 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

 

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Dan-O is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dan-O until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 20:36, 26 January 2024 (UTC)Reply