Virtual Cache Rejected

March 22, 2004

I just recently had a virtual cache rejected, because it was not unique enough to qualify. The cache was created in a county park, which takes donations to engrave up to 25 letters in a boardwalk plank. I had GeoCachers engraved in one and then my girlfriend and my cache names engraved in the one below it.

Since this park is somewhat environmentally sensitive, I thought this would be the best way for cachers to see the park. Also if they felt like donating to the park, not under any obligation, then they could have their caching names engraved and placed under the "GeoCachers" plank like myself.

I thought about placing a micro somewhere outside the park entrance, and making the planks an offset, but there have been to many micro's placed in the area which are virtual impossible to find in a reasonable amount of time, almost like finding a needle in a haystack.

So my question to everyone is, do you think this is unique enough to qualify as a virtual cache?

4.7k · March 22, 2004

huh. you never know. my favorite recected virtual was a lifesized marle sculpture of willard scot inside a silo on a working farm. go figure. you move on.

2.1k · March 22, 2004

So my question to everyone is, do you think this is unique enough to qualify as a virtual cache?

Sounds cool enough to me.

But then again, I'm in favor of just about every virtual (and GC.com knows it) so I don't think having my opinion in your basket is going to count for much weight.

4k · March 22, 2004

As for me, no, I don't think it's that great. No real "wow" factor in it. If you could place a cache nearby, as it sounds like you can, then do that and make the plank a bonus cache, for those that want to see it....I wouldn't make the effort to go see it, but that's just me....I can see boards pretty much anywhere if I want to.....

7.2k · March 22, 2004

I think you've not given us enough information to wow us. If that is all there is then, no, it's not enough.

March 22, 2004

I recently had a VIRTUAL rejected with the rules offered to me as the reason. I asked for an appeal and was again rejected. I don't pretend to understand the reasons, but as long as we have a governing authority that we all CHOOSE and AGREE to work with, I will abide by their final decision.

4k · March 22, 2004

I recently had a VIRTUAL rejected with the rules offered to me as the reason. I asked for an appeal and was again rejected. I don't pretend to understand the reasons, but as long as we have a governing authority that we all CHOOSE and AGREE to work with, I will abide by their final decision.

Wow! That's one of the most rational statements I've heard from someone that had a cache rejected! Good answer!

March 22, 2004

I don't read the forum posts that often, but everytime I look here, someone seems to be complaining about having a virtual not approved. Are ANY virtual caches approved these days? The word in my area is NO, but I have no way to confirm or refute that view.

3.1k · March 23, 2004

I won't even bother to submit a virtual. What has "wow" factor to me doesn't to others. What gets approved usually makes me wonder what made it better than my idea. So, why bother?

Stuff a little film canister not far away from your virtual and ask people to sign the log and then go to the tile or whatever and send you the information. So it's a multi stage, that usually flys every time.

24.7k · March 23, 2004

The only difference between Wow and horse pucky is that everyone can agree on horse pucky when they see it.

Wow shouldn't be a rule required to get a virtual approved. Nobody can agree on the lower bar for Wow factors.

9.2k · March 23, 2004

I just recently had a virtual cache rejected, because it was not unique enough to qualify. The cache was created in a county park, which takes donations to engrave up to 25 letters in a boardwalk plank. I had GeoCachers engraved in one and then my girlfriend and my cache names engraved in the one below it.

Since this park is somewhat environmentally sensitive, I thought this would be the best way for cachers to see the park. Also if they felt like donating to the park, not under any obligation, then they could have their caching names engraved and placed under the "GeoCachers" plank like myself.

I thought about placing a micro somewhere outside the park entrance, and making the planks an offset, but there have been to many micro's placed in the area which are virtual impossible to find in a reasonable amount of time, almost like finding a needle in a haystack.

So my question to everyone is, do you think this is unique enough to qualify as a virtual cache?

This is a very common way to raise money. Just about every town has "name bricks" somewhere. Nothing unique about it at all.

However, this cache (now archived) is one of my all-time favorites. It starts out at just such a "named brick" area. You have to locate specific bricks, and get clues from what's on the brick in order to calculate the coordinates to the physical cache.

Edited March 23, 2004 by Prime Suspect

38.2k · March 23, 2004

I just recently had a virtual cache rejected, because it was not unique enough to qualify.

The admin has spoken and I tend to agree. I personally wouldn't go out of my way to look at a brick in a park with some stranger's name engraved on it.

I don't read the forum posts that often, but everytime I look here, someone seems to be complaining about having a virtual not approved. Are ANY virtual caches approved these days? The word in my area is NO, but I have no way to confirm or refute that view.

Yes virtuals are being approved. Here's one that was approved last month. Since archived though. And any admin will tell you that they are happy to approve virtuals that fit the guidelines.

Edited March 23, 2004 by briansnat

March 23, 2004

I recently had a VIRTUAL rejected with the rules offered to me as the reason. I asked for an appeal and was again rejected. I don't pretend to understand the reasons, but as long as we have a governing authority that we all CHOOSE and AGREE to work with, I will abide by their final decision.

Wow factor? How about WOW for this response. I am going to have to remember this one for future reference.

Thanks Spoo

March 23, 2004

Wow shouldn't be a rule required to get a virtual approved. Nobody can agree on the lower bar for Wow factors.

I agree with you Renegade Knight, I think there should be a better definition of "WOW", like "WOW" Chazman has really done something good for this park and donated $ for his planks. Or "WOW" this cache really sucks!! Is Wow even in the dictionary??

If the people to be at GeoCaching.com don't like to approve virtual caches, then why even give us a choice in "trying" to place one. I might have just approached it a different way, not that it is a hassle, but just a little more maintenance on my part.

I guess if this is the only thing that gets under my skin this week I'm lucky.

March 23, 2004

Yes virtuals are being approved. Here's one that was approved last month. Since archived though. And any admin will tell you that they are happy to approve virtuals that fit the guidelines.

Yes and this one bites, the park service decided they didn't want anything to do with a virtual cache. What are they telling us not to "Look" now? I guess we will have to hike with our eyes closed. But there really isn't a description; maybe it is "Top Secret".

March 23, 2004

This is a very common way to raise money. Just about every town has "name bricks" somewhere. Nothing unique about it at all.

However, this cache (now archived) is one of my all-time favorites. It starts out at just such a "named brick" area. You have to locate specific bricks, and get clues from what's on the brick in order to calculate the coordinates to the physical cache.

Yes I can see your point about buying a brick in just about every town, but this is a park and the donations are used to help make improvements. So I thought maybe a cacher that really enjoys this park would like to give back to it in some way, and also help support the positive effects of the GeoCaching community. Keeping in mind that there is no "obligation" to donate in order to log the cache.

3.8k · March 23, 2004

I recently had a VIRTUAL rejected with the rules offered to me as the reason. I asked for an appeal and was again rejected. I don't pretend to understand the reasons, but as long as we have a governing authority that we all CHOOSE and AGREE to work with, I will abide by their final decision.

Wow! That's one of the most rational statements I've heard from someone that had a cache rejected! Good answer!

Thing is, he's 110% right.

2.2k · March 23, 2004

this one was approved just recently.

home town

here is another.

boot hill

38.2k · March 23, 2004

Yes and this one bites, the park service decided they didn't want anything to do with a virtual cache. What are they telling us not to "Look" now? I guess we will have to hike with our eyes closed. But there really isn't a description; maybe it is "Top Secret".

That's a whole 'nother issue. I'm not sure when the NPS came down against our 1st amendment right to say "here's a cool spot, come look at it" on the Internet. I'm not sure if GC.COM had that one archived just to avoid greif, or if the owner did just to be nice. I know if it was my cache, I'd have fought to keep it alive on principle.

However, this cache (now archived) is one of my all-time favorites. It starts out at just such a "named brick" area. You have to locate specific bricks, and get clues from what's on the brick in order to calculate the coordinates to the physical cache.

That's a great way to get a cache like this to work. It serves the cache owner's purpose of drawing people to the spot he wants to bring them to, yet satisfies GC.COM's preference for a physical cache. I think too many people are just not motivated enough to follow through on something like this because it takes a little work and imagination.

Edited March 23, 2004 by briansnat

March 23, 2004

Here's one that was approved last month. Since archived though.

OMFG! The NPS is disallowing VIRTUALS now?!?!?!

Guys (and gals), we REALLY need to get organized and serious about lobbying/educating the NPS on geocaching. If we don't at least keep virtuals allowed, the rust will spread. First to other federal agencies, then state, then local. Caching will be prohibited everywhere except your local Wal-Mart parking lot, because nobody wants a cache "buried" on their land.

Seriously, we need to start getting active on this.

6.4k · March 23, 2004

I don't read the forum posts that often, but everytime I look here, someone seems to be complaining about having a virtual not approved. Are ANY virtual caches approved these days? The word in my area is NO, but I have no way to confirm or refute that view.

March 5, 2004

March 4, 2004

Sure looks like they still approve virts in Florida to me.

1.8k · March 23, 2004

I thought about placing a micro somewhere outside the park entrance, and making the planks an offset, but there have been to many micro's placed in the area

Then I agree, it shouldn't be approved as a virtual. If you can hide a log sheet, somehow, nearby, then there shouldn't be a virtual.

And from the micros I've seen the last six months, it'd be almost impossible to find somewhere that you can't hide a micro nearby, unless the area bans caches completely.

3.9k · March 23, 2004

Here's one that was approved last month. Since archived though.

OMFG! The NPS is disallowing VIRTUALS now?!?!?!

Guys (and gals), we REALLY need to get organized and serious about lobbying/educating the NPS on geocaching. If we don't at least keep virtuals allowed, the rust will spread. First to other federal agencies, then state, then local. Caching will be prohibited everywhere except your local Wal-Mart parking lot, because nobody wants a cache "buried" on their land.

Seriously, we need to start getting active on this.

I agree. This is a much bigger issue.

BTW: Approved Virt on March 9th

March 23, 2004

Here's one that was approved last month. Since archived though.

OMFG! The NPS is disallowing VIRTUALS now?!?!?!

Guys (and gals), we REALLY need to get organized and serious about lobbying/educating the NPS on geocaching. If we don't at least keep virtuals allowed, the rust will spread. First to other federal agencies, then state, then local. Caching will be prohibited everywhere except your local Wal-Mart parking lot, because nobody wants a cache "buried" on their land.

Seriously, we need to start getting active on this.

I agree. This is a much bigger issue.

BTW: Approved Virt on March 9th

I don't get it. The National Park Service is now saying that I cannot walk on an established trail, and I cannot take pictures?

1.1k · March 23, 2004

Is the NPS saying I can't use a GPSr on the public land they are hired to manage?

Whats next no camera, because we all know that pictures steal some of the beauty with each shot?

Since this is a vitual, and they want it removed, are you going to have to go dig up the trail to comply?

TPTB would never approve but I would be tempted to post a vitual every 0.1 mile in this park!

Now I will count to ten, take a deep breath and move on.

11,12,13,............ On the original subject, I feel that rejecting the Plank vitual was proper. Make it the first stage of a multi to a cache outside the park.

Edited March 23, 2004 by captnemo

March 23, 2004

removed post

Seatrout

Edited March 24, 2004 by SeaTrout

5.7k · March 23, 2004

This is a very common way to raise money. Just about every town has "name bricks" somewhere. Nothing unique about it at all.

However, this cache (now archived) is one of my all-time favorites. It starts out at just such a "named brick" area. You have to locate specific bricks, and get clues from what's on the brick in order to calculate the coordinates to the physical cache.

Yes I can see your point about buying a brick in just about every town, but this is a park and the donations are used to help make improvements. So I thought maybe a cacher that really enjoys this park would like to give back to it in some way, and also help support the positive effects of the GeoCaching community. Keeping in mind that there is no "obligation" to donate in order to log the cache.

Sounds like this might more appropriately be a site for an event cache. Donating is fine and all, but I don't really want to go to a virtual in front of the Goodwill. I've been to some really awesome virtuals, but this one doesn't sound like it would interest me. An event cache at the park would though.

--Marky

March 24, 2004

Sounds like this might more appropriately be a site for an event cache. Donating is fine and all, but I don't really want to go to a virtual in front of the Goodwill. I've been to some really awesome virtuals, but this one doesn't sound like it would interest me. An event cache at the park would though.

--Marky

Not really sure what you mean by the Goodwill thing, I don't think I would enjoy that much either. This park has a boardwalk winding through a pristine nature area, and along a well know creek. So I guess I will have to settle with making this a mulit-cache and plant a micro outside the park, not really what I had in mind.

38.2k · March 24, 2004

Not really sure what you mean by the Goodwill thing, I don't think I would enjoy that much either. This park has a boardwalk winding through a pristine nature area, and along a well know creek. So I guess I will have to settle with making this a mulit-cache and plant a micro outside the park, not really what I had in mind.

OK, then why not a cache...a decon box perhaps, hanging from a nail, or bolt, under the boardwalk? I have a cachein

what sounds like a similar area and its worked out fine.

Edited March 24, 2004 by briansnat

March 24, 2004

We just had a virtual approved in my area. Since there is lots of room for a cache and since it a multi could have made a good trip around the park I am not sure why it was approved. Guess I should have placed a real cache there -- I have a couple of caches close by that alread suggest parking at the park.

Unfortunately as long we have individual approvers then there will be some spottyness in the guidelines. I am not saying that this can be avoided but rather it is just a fact of life.

2.2k · March 24, 2004

I beleive that physical caches take precedence over virtuals. If you were to place a physical cache within .1 mile of a virtual, the physical would win out and cause the virt to be archived.......I think.

1.1k · March 24, 2004

I beleive that physical caches take precedence over virtuals. If you were to place a physical cache within .1 mile of a virtual, the physical would win out and cause the virt to be archived.......I think.

Is this like rock-paper-scissors?

Virt Beats Micro

Micro Beats Traditional

Traditional beats Virt

Have to try that out later.

2.2k · March 24, 2004

Is this like rock-paper-scissors?

Virt Beats Micro

Micro Beats Traditional

Traditional beats Virt

Have to try that out later.

Well, since the micro is still a physical cache, virt still loses.

1.1k · March 24, 2004

Well, since the micro is still a physical cache, virt still loses.

In my book EVERYTHING beats Micro. Micro people, Stop IT!

March 24, 2004

Wow shouldn't be a rule required to get a virtual approved. Nobody can agree on the lower bar for Wow factors.

Nobody has to agree on where to set the bar. If the approver says "wow" then the cache meets the "wow factor." It's a pretty simple rule, really. It might mean a virtual cache getting approved in one place and rejected in another, but that's just the way it works.

5.3k · March 24, 2004

But then again, I'm in favor of just about every virtual (and GC.com knows it) so I don't think having my opinion in your basket is going to count for much weight.

Is it a sign of the Apocalypse when ju66l3r and I agree twice in one week?

3.9k · March 24, 2004

Well, since the micro is still a physical cache, virt still loses.

In my book EVERYTHING beats Micro. Micro people, Stop IT!

There's a certain art in hiding a good micro. I haven't yet mastered it but I have found a few that are really well done. In those cases I would rather find a micro than a virtual. In fact in all cases I would rather find a micro than a virtual but that's just be. I found one in CT that was a film container stuck under a corner of a monument. I still took the time to read the monument on the Korean War and I got to sign a logbook and I was happy. And that's what it's all about. Me being happy. As long as you all make me happy, I'll be happy.

March 25, 2004

There's a certain art in hiding a good micro. I haven't yet mastered it but I have found a few that are really well done. In those cases I would rather find a micro than a virtual. In fact in all cases I would rather find a micro than a virtual but that's just be. I found one in CT that was a film container stuck under a corner of a monument. I still took the time to read the monument on the Korean War and I got to sign a logbook and I was happy. And that's what it's all about. Me being happy. As long as you all make me happy, I'll be happy.

Thanks everybody for you comments on this thread. Since I donated $50 to have two planks engraved and placed on the boardwalk, I really didn't have any choice but to make it a stinking Multi-cache, nothing wrong with Multi-caches, I just wanted to make this a virtual for a breathe of fresh air around the area. The only thing that didn't qualify it for a Virtual was that it didn't "WOW" the admin in my area. It "Wowed" me thinking that maybe more cachers would want to donate money and become part of the Cache. Oh well I'm jumping off of my soapbox now.

I do have a problem with most Micro's, for instance if a micro is poorly placed it becomes nothing but a piece of trash in an already trashed planet. Just like the cigarette butts tossed out car windows everyday. So if the micro comes up missing, do you think the owner is going to be able to find it easily enough? Besides I got the feeling that most cachers and the game creators were all about loving nature and the CITO motto.

There have been too many micro's placed in my area lately which has turned me off from wanting to place them. I enjoy caching but I have to draw the line at looking for a micro for an hour or so, not knowing if a squirrel ran off with it or the wind blew it from its hiding place.

Nuff said.

Thanks again for your comments, and please feel free to continue with them.

4.7k · March 25, 2004

hey, i'd go find it.

but then agin, i've gone on record as being not terribly fussy about what you send me out to find. unless it's a REALLY crappy abandoned vacation drive-n-dump, but that's just way too many other arguments.

i am also not fussy about a lot of things. for instance, i have been known to eat food that i have found under furniture. imagine me, moving the couch back to vacuum (a stretch of imagination in itself, since i took up geocaching) and finding a pizza crust that i know has been dragged there by a housepet. "food", i say, out loud and to nobody in particular. "bonus".

or like the time i moved a pile of wet and dirty laundry from the back of my car and found an oreo. "bonus", i said. " a cookie left over from last weekend." and popped it in my mouth.

once at a picnic i ate some roasted roadkill and some little things we dug out of the ground.

and no matter what anyone tells you, earthworms are not "delicious and peppery tasting". not even sauteed with roated garlic and red peppers and served in a cream sauce on toast points. the fact that i know this is kind of telling.

so when i express opinions, you have to consider the source.

3.9k · March 25, 2004

hey, i'd go find it.

but then agin, i've gone on record as being not terribly fussy about what you send me out to find. unless it's a REALLY crappy abandoned vacation drive-n-dump, but that's just way too many other arguments.

i am also not fussy about a lot of things. for instance, i have been known to eat food that i have found under furniture. imagine me, moving the couch back to vacuum (a stretch of imagination in itself, since i took up geocaching) and finding a pizza crust that i know has been dragged there by a housepet. "food", i say, out loud and to nobody in particular. "bonus".

or like the time i moved a pile of wet and dirty laundry from the back of my car and found an oreo. "bonus", i said. " a cookie left over from last weekend." and popped it in my mouth.

once at a picnic i ate some roasted roadkill and some little things we dug out of the ground.

and no matter what anyone tells you, earthworms are not "delicious and peppery tasting". not even sauteed with roated garlic and red peppers and served in a cream sauce on toast points. the fact that i know this is kind of telling.

so when i express opinions, you have to consider the source.

Perfectly normal.

2.3k · March 25, 2004

Since I donated $50 to have two planks engraved and placed on the boardwalk, I really didn't have any choice but to make it a stinking Multi-cache, nothing wrong with Multi-caches, I just wanted to make this a virtual for a breathe of fresh air around the area.

This is what's wrong with the prevailing attitude in here against Virts. This hider wanted to place a Virt....not a MICRO, not a FULL-SIZED, not a MULTI....a VIRTUAL....and yet he got railroaded into putting a physical cache in a nature area only for the fact that there was a spot for it. Got news for you people, there is room IN EVERY SQUARE INCH OF THE PLANET FOR A CACHE...just because there is room, doesn't mean you should HAVE to place a physical cache there. He wants to place a Virt that had great intentions and a WOW factor for him, then let him place it. I think in this case the hider had a great idea to get people involved in supporting the area...but NOOOOOO, TPTB seem to just want him to slap a multi up there and call it a day...

What we are seeing is the slow eradication of Virtual caches here. What a shame, creativity and activism be damned...

March 25, 2004

This hider wanted to place a Virt....not a MICRO, not a FULL-SIZED, not a MULTI....a VIRTUAL....

Yeah, well said. It sounded like a good idea for a cache to me.

March 25, 2004

Gee Chazman, seems you should have engraved a NaviCachers instead.

Just incidentally - are you the cacher who last moved Cach-U-Nut #59 from Albion Basin in Utah? The Nut is listed as dropped by you into Tip Top Cache but I haven't seen any mention of this Utah game piece in your paper log. Is there any error there?

1.4k · March 25, 2004

OMFG! The NPS is disallowing VIRTUALS now?!?!?!

Does anyone know why Totem Park was archived? This is very odd. And I certainly hope that it doesn't portend a trend among other NPS park managers.

3.5k · March 25, 2004

Maybe someone should start a new thread about the NPS killing that virtual in Sitka, Alaska. That really irks me!

We should all write emails to ranger and ask "WTF"!

2.1k · March 25, 2004

But then again, I'm in favor of just about every virtual (and GC.com knows it) so I don't think having my opinion in your basket is going to count for much weight.

Is it a sign of the Apocalypse when ju66l3r and I agree twice in one week?

It's enough for me...[shudder]...

5.3k · March 25, 2004

I just recently had a virtual cache rejected, because it was not unique enough to qualify. The cache was created in a county park, which takes donations to engrave up to 25 letters in a boardwalk plank. I had GeoCachers engraved in one and then my girlfriend and my cache names engraved in the one below it.

Since this park is somewhat environmentally sensitive, I thought this would be the best way for cachers to see the park. Also if they felt like donating to the park, not under any obligation, then they could have their caching names engraved and placed under the "GeoCachers" plank like myself.

I thought about placing a micro somewhere outside the park entrance, and making the planks an offset, but there have been to many micro's placed in the area which are virtual impossible to find in a reasonable amount of time, almost like finding a needle in a haystack.

So my question to everyone is, do you think this is unique enough to qualify as a virtual cache?

I had a virtual rejected were the first televison transmission was made, I was told the invention of television was not sigificant. Lets see, without the CRT (cathode ray tube-picture tube) not only is there no telvision, there whould be no radar, there would no sattelited images from space, and lets not forget, no computer monitours for most people and more than likely no such thing as geocahing.com.

yes, television had no effect on the world. Lets not forget no coverage of the vietam war, or gulf war, Niel armstrongs walk on the moon, the asassinations of John and Bobby Kenneday, the riots in Watts, riots at the democratic convention in Chicago, yes TELEVISION is not a significant invention.

The problem with the system regarding Virtuals is that new ones are no longer allowed, they just don't want to admit it.

2k · March 25, 2004

I notice that there are a lot of complaints about the National Park Service disallowing Virtual Caches. I went through the proper channels and had no problem with them approving a virtual cache last year. They even were helpful in deciding what quesitons needed to be answered in order to prove the cacher had visited the cache. http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_detai...93-27effd258574 My problem arose because another cacher created a virtual at this location while I was going through the approval process with the NPS so once it was discovered my cache was archived.

38.2k · March 25, 2004

I had a virtual rejected were the first televison transmission was made, I was told the invention of television was not sigificant.

I could see your argument as there is somewhat of a wow factor involved. As far as the cache in question, I don't see the wow factor in a boardwalk plank. I have a paving stone near my town library engraved with my name and I wouldn't dream of posting it here as a virt because I think it would be pretty lame (and if I did and it was denied, I sure wouldn't whine in the forums). It's caches like this that caused the crackdown on virtuals in the first place. I call it the "yeah, so what" factor. You see a cache page with an interesting description, eagerly head out expecting to find something cool and instead you see a flag pole, fence post, or boardwalk plank and instead of saying "wow", you say "yeah, so what?"

Edited March 25, 2004 by briansnat

2.3k · March 25, 2004

I have a paving stone near my town library engraved with my name and I wouldn't dream of posting it here as a virt because I think it would be pretty lame (and if I did and it was denied, I sure wouldn't whine in the forums).

Do they have a cut-and-paste option for that kind of response? Why is it that you call it "whining", when in fact he is following the GC.com guidelines?-

"If, after exchanging emails with the approver, you still feel your cache has been misjudged, feel free to post a message in the General Forums to see what the geocaching community thinks. If the majority believes that it should be posted, then Groundspeak administrators and approvers may review the listing and your cache may be unarchived."

He is just fighting for his cache idea, there is no need to jump all over him and respond with "lame" and "whiner".

Virtual Cache Rejected

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment