This user is a polyglot and likes languages a bit too much for their own good. They're happy to try to speak to you here in Spanish, German, French, Portuguese, Italian, Hebrew, Yiddish, or Russian, although they may need to switch back to English depending on the subject matter. For a full list of proficiencies, see their User page.

This user talk page might bewatched by friendlytalk page stalkers, which means that someone other than me might reply to your query. Their input is welcome and their help with messages that I cannot reply to quickly is appreciated.

Archives

Index Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14 Archive 15 Archive 16 Archive 17 Archive 18 Archive 19 Archive 20 Archive 21 Archive 22 Archive 23 Archive 24 Archive 25 Archive 26 Archive 27 Archive 28 Archive 29 Archive 30 Archive 31 Archive 32 Archive 33 Archive 34 Archive 35 Archive 36 Archive 37 Archive 38 Archive 39 Archive 40 Archive 41 Archive 42 Archive 43 Archive 44 Archive 45 Archive 46 Archive 47 Archive 48 Archive 49

This page has archives. Sections older than60 days may be auto-archived byLowercase sigmabot III if there are more than 5.

Hello Rosguill, as previously you helped in blocking users who violated theWP:CTOP restrictions, I decided to take this here and know your opinion on how to proceed regarding this situation: A new User who keeps into editing topics that they are not supposed to edit because of the restrictions, I have redirected one of their articles for violatingWP:CT/IRP, and reverted one of their edits where they tried to expand a draft (the draft was about something of a kurdish conquest of a city, obvious Violation ofWP:CT/KURD) so I reverted them, and I left them two different messages regarding the Introduction to continuous topics.[1][2] and now recently I can see they made a new draft violatingWP:GS/AA, the draft goes by the name ofKsani valley. as I previously said, I have warned them twice. and this is their fourth violation for the restrictions. Shoul I redirect their article and warn them forWP:GS/AA restrictions? or you have got another thing in mind? Best.R3YBOl(🌲)11:26, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

R3YBOl, I will look into this, as the KURD and AA issues likely warrant some sort of intervention. I think you may have misreadWP:CT/IRP, as there is no blanket ECR in place for that topic._signed,Rosguill^talk13:53, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Alright. I thought that military operations that involving iran (such as the article the user created:Operation Baghdad) fall under the CT/IRP restrictions. I appreciate your response, Thank you so much.R3YBOl(🌲)14:23, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

R3YBOl, they are covered by CT/IRP, but to my knowledge there's no ECR baseline for the topic. The recentIran-Israel war and related fighting are ECR by way ofWP:PIA, as Iran's conflict with Israel is directly related to the Arab-Israeli conflict, even if Iran is not an Arab state per-se._signed,Rosguill^talk14:30, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		Thank you or your efforts and active contributions on Wikipedia in general and also for assisting in granting permissions.Chippla ✍️ - Best Regards23:35, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I reported TheCreatorOne on ANI, with almost no engagement and it was archived. After your comment in the Kosovo talk page, and my post there, they've continued to add disputed content, without using edit summaries or responding/acknowledging whatsoever on the talk page. Question is, what to do at this point? --Griboski (talk)20:13, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Rosguill. You have new messages atWikipedia:Requests for permissions/New page reviewer.
Message added 06:55, 31 August 2025 (UTC). You canremove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Really sorry for disturbing you, I was wondering if you could take a look at my reply.Cactus🌵^spikyouch06:55, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

About your recent revert (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Malcolm_X&oldid=1309031596) - I also noticed the Antisemitism section's text was readded via an edit (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Malcolm_X&diff=prev&oldid=1308231810). I thought that edit went against current edit/talk page consensus too. I wanted to revert it as well, though I wasn't sure how to communicate that in my undo's edit summary or on the reverter's user talk page.

The edit also created a Harv no-target error for Work cited sources (Pollock and Norton's sources, which go against current consensus) that didn't exist. The text was added back but not the sources. And fixing it would've gone against current consensus. It was stressing me out. Things are supposed to have sources on Wikipedia right? Especially on a featured article!

Thank you for taking action and knowing the right words to say!Similarsample5 (talk)01:54, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There's this IP hopper who's been removing content from several Indian diaspora articles (e.g.Chindians,Indians in Japan,Indians in Korea,Indians in Thailand), and has been especially combative on theAmmar Siamwalla article,WP:TENDENTIOUSly repeatedly removing cited content by making up false arguments. Their refusal to create an account leads me to suspect that they're trying to avoid scrutiny of their edits, which are pretty muchWP:NOTHERE. Going through the article histories, I sawAlikima (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log), whom you indef blocked in 2024 for "persistent removal of sourced content despite warnings, misleading edit summaries, and dishonest answers to inquiries". This description sounds very similar to the current IP hopper's behaviour. I know CUs won't publicly connect IPs, so I'm not sure if there's much point to an SPI, but I'm not sure where else this could be raised either. Do you have suggestions? --Paul_012 (talk)01:24, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Paul_012, you should collect some indicative diffs that show a behavioral match and file at SPI so that there's an easy paper trail to follow. There won't be any Checkusering, but your case will be reviewed and a block on behavioral evidence will be the outcome if you're right._signed,Rosguill^talk01:37, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the suggestion. Looking more closely at their edits and scope of articles, I'm not seeing that many obvious parallels, so this should probably be approached separately after all. I guess what I was really trying to ask was whether their editing pattern was familiar to you, but of course you probably wouldn't remember a single block from a year and a half ago. --Paul_012 (talk)22:46, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I don't have any particular recollection that would be useful._signed,Rosguill^talk00:55, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! First, I haven't been making a lot of edits, I jump in here and there on articles that interest me. And no, I have never had an account and don't have an intention to make it at the moment, maybe in the future. Just want to clarify that I have only made a small amount of edits and probably not as many as Paul thinks. I want to improve the articles.

You are free to check and scrutinise all the edits I have made, there shouldn't be anything controversial. The problem is with Paul, who doesn't want to discuss and is miss referencing sources. If you check, especially the Ammar article, there have also been other users in the talk page that have questioned Pauls use of sources, which frankly could use improvement! As it is now, there is for example one reference to a completely different person, who is a music artist, but has the same name, and Paul refuses to remove or change that reference, unclear why. I think the article would be improved by at least having links that are actually talking about the person in the article. I don't think that's unreasonable at all.220.147.123.41 (talk)12:38, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It turns out they have some overlap with 58.99.101.165, which you blocked for disruptive editing earlier this May. I've started anANI thread, FYI. --Paul_012 (talk)19:21, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't mean to remove my comment?[3]Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk)19:45, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, my bad!_signed,Rosguill^talk19:51, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for closing that case, which answered a question that I would otherwise have asked, which is whether the non-XC user was permitted to discuss the XC topic in project space. Okay. So they are not allowed to use project space noticeboards to discuss when they are not allowed to use article talk space to discuss. I agree that the restriction to XC users is draconian, and I agree that the draconian restriction is unfortunately necessary. I can see that Indian Military History is comparable to American Politics in that it has to do with a very large and very deeply divided country. I see that the filing editor was then given a 31-hour block byUser:Firefangledfeathers forsealioning.Robert McClenon (talk)17:12, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Robert McClenon, I'd actually go further and say that Indian military history and caste topics are significantly worse areas than American Politics on English Wikipedia, both in terms of the severeness of the restrictions, broadness of scope, and the widespread problematic editing (including extensive attempts to GAME AE and other processes) prior to the most recent ARBCOM case._signed,Rosguill^talk17:19, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. India is more populous and older than the United States. An American should understand the complexity of Indian history and politics by thinking of American history and politics. A South Asian should understand the complexity of American history and politics by thinking of Indian history and politics. There are caste and race. The United States is the world's largest Christian-majority country, and has a proud tradition of religious pluralism that is threatened by Christian fanatics. India is the world's largest Hindu-majority country, and has a proud tradition of religious pluralism that is threatened by Hindu fanatics. Yes. Two deeply divided countries.Robert McClenon (talk)17:38, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As the crux of the rfc is from the tech4palestine article, would it be applicable to ask for folks to follow the 1k word limit from now on? The rfc seems to have devolved.Bluethricecreamman (talk)16:38, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bluethricecreamman that request seems reasonable at a glance, but my priorities today are such that I don’t have time to investigate and action it. I would suggest reaching out to another active admin with PIA experience._signed,Rosguill^talk17:00, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. I asked scottishfinishradish on their talk page for their opinion and if they want to enforce word limits as wellBluethricecreamman (talk)17:56, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AE would also be an option, and would be most appropriate if you were asking to apply this to an article, but given the time frame of an RfC vs. AE response times I'm not sure that would be amenable._signed,Rosguill^talk17:58, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I owe you (and indirectly, SFR) a small apology, I hadn't realized that the 1,000 word limit is currently a topic-wide sanction by default, and thought I was being asked to apply a selective sanction that had been put into force at the related article as a discretionary action. Had I known that I would have taken action myself._signed,Rosguill^talk18:44, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I saw what you did with Project Penguin. You guys realized talk pages became a source for uncensored information or sources for verified or unverified links. Gotta shut it down! People CANNOT be allowed to click on the talk page and decide for themselves! Only random eggheads are allowed to find/create context! ;-)2601:602:CE00:65D0:1B0C:4289:8B70:B009 (talk)06:57, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea what this is in reference to, sorry._signed,Rosguill^talk14:13, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just shocked at how confused, hidden, and different the talk pages have become. It used to be quite useful for interesting leads but then you guys started "archiving" discussions and shrouding them so that it becomes difficult to find a discussion concerning additions to articles, revisions, requests, etc. Like I said I used to find obscure and/or imteresting info and links by going to the talk pages of a certain topic. It reeks of dissimulation further narrative control.2601:602:CE00:65D0:B4E:A372:37F9:B186 (talk)16:04, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please take a quick look atWikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Draft:Anuradhapura_invasion_of_Chola_Kingdom_(114-136) and advise me as to whether I understood the extended-confirmed restriction correctly. It appeared to me that neither editor was qualified to edit that topic. If there hadn't been an extended-confirmed problem, I would have told them to resume discussion, because the discussion was two months old.

I just noticed that when they started that discussion, the topic wasn't subject to the extended-confirmed restriction because ArbCom hadn't ruled yet. It's also strange because the dispute is about a draft, but there isn't an exception for draft space.

So was my thinking correct that the dispute needed closing.Robert McClenon (talk)17:32, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yep,Robert McClenon looks like you made the right call, the only additional thing I would have been done would have been to leave a {{subst:alert/first|sa}} tag on the involved editors' talk pages._signed,Rosguill^talk02:59, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please take another look at the conduct of the filing editor? They have asked me a question on my talk page about how to proceed. They submitted a draft in the area ofIndian military history, and are saying that it should have been accepted. It appears to me that it should not have been accepted, because they were trying to use AFC as anend run around the restriction, and they are now asking me about some concern about the other editor. I have now notified both of them, but I think that one of them may be headed forArbitration Enforcement if they don't slow down.Robert McClenon (talk)19:42, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Rosguill:Please protectChauhan (surname) underSouth Asian castes with extended confirm restrictions, because socks of User:Truthfindervert targeted this page many times this page is based on differentcastes of India. This article was protected before against same sock group.[4]163.61.74.19 (talk)10:40, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, could you maybe help out with a new editor who is very likely using multiple IP accounts to disruptive editing multiple pages? ItsNataliarose123 (talk ·contribs). Shares the exact same (disrespectful) language as these two IP’s:user:168.70.109.150 anduser:219.73.24.186. I think its a very clear sockpuppet sort of a case, but page protections might be preferred instead. Could you maybe help out with that? Or at least warn this user? I sadly don’t have time for it right now. Thanks.Woxic1589 (talk)16:33, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've warned the user--I'm not aware of any past sockmasters, so until they either heed or ignore the warning I'm not sure there's any further action needed._signed,Rosguill^talk16:58, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I just reported it at the notice board (just to be sure) for the disruptive behavior and language as the other editor just didn’t stop. But it did remind me of someone so I thought that it could be a sock.Woxic1589 (talk)17:01, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User continues doing the exact same thing:[5]. I don’t wanna revert it anymore because of a edit war thing. Could some other action be taken?Woxic1589 (talk)14:08, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Woxic1589, at this point you should avoid continuing the edit war and work towards resolution at ANI (and if possible, on relevant article talk pages). In particular, it would be helpful if you could address the allegation at ANI that you have been adding material not supported by cited sources, as I think it would help clarify the matter._signed,Rosguill^talk14:13, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thats a better idea indeed. I would however appreciate it if the other involved editor could show some patience and stop with that current behavior. But I won’t get involved with him for now as I will also end up in a edit war block then.Woxic1589 (talk)17:16, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Changed my mind, its simply not possible to work together with this editor:[6], see also the talk pageTalk:United States men's national volleyball team. I have no idea what he even means with any of this. I don’t think that this is normal.Woxic1589 (talk)17:21, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I also don’t think that this behavior is allowed either:[7] I let it over to the admins.Woxic1589 (talk)17:23, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Rosguill! I found your username in the Adopt-a-User program page as someone who is willing to take on an adoptee. I am relatively new to as a Wiki editor, but I've been reading Wiki for ages. Recently, though, I've been reading a lot of new material outside of wiki (mostly in the humanities), and I come to Wiki to double-check my understanding. I often find that articles could be drastically improved (for example:Fetishism, which I've started to work on.) I want to make sure that I'm revamping and improving this and other articles with care and according to Wiki rules, so I reached out to the mentor assigned to me by default. I haven't heard from them in quite some time, so I thought I'd ask for a new mentor. Would you be willing to mentor me? How does that process work?EspressoMachine77 (talk)20:25, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

EspressoMachine77, I typically provide structured courses for editors who are interested in specific advanced permissions. Otherwise, I'm happy to answer questions and give advice but don't have much in the way of structured programming._signed,Rosguill^talk01:02, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) I've also grabbed you as formal mentee, while I'm at it. --asilvering (talk)01:12, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Rosguill and @Asilvering Thank you so much for responding quickly! I will work with Asilvering as I get started. I would be interested in engaging with you, Rosguill, in the future for leveling up in the wiki editor world, so to speak, after I've worked on a few articles. Thanks again to you both 🙏🏽EspressoMachine77 (talk)12:55, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I'm sure Rosguill doesn't mind if you ask them newbie questions! Just, now if you use that mentorship module to ask questions, they'll go to me instead of your less-active mentor. --asilvering (talk)17:41, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds great! thank you! @Asilvering, I already posted my first question on your talk page :)EspressoMachine77 (talk)17:49, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Rosguill. I want to moveVokopole to its correct spelling, Vokopolë. However,Vokopolë is a redirect toFerid Vokopola. I tried removing the redirect from Ferid's article, but I still can't rename Vokopole. It seems that the redirect page should be deleted to allow the page move. Can you take a look?Ktrimi991 (talk)22:57, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Done, you may want to go throughVokopolë to proofread for the name's spelling._signed,Rosguill^talk13:52, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Rosguill, much appreciated. Yes, I am doing it now. Cheers,Ktrimi991 (talk)17:06, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion atWikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Notifying you due to your previous discussions in the talk pages. Seehere81567518W (talk)17:18, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

unashamedly,

Sandro1041 (talk)14:42, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A bribe? I see that you blocked the donor of the goat. Maybe you can use the goat to eat disruptive posts.Robert McClenon (talk)23:41, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I do appreciate goats_signed,Rosguill^talk23:47, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think several editors have forgotten to watch their word count inthe discussion, but I'm not sure what should be done in response.Butterscotch Beluga (talk)18:25, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think a pinged warning is appropriate, especially considering that they've only barely gone over the line._signed,Rosguill^talk19:02, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes they don't learn. We don't need robotic appeals, and we don't need paid appeals by SPAs. Thanks.Robert McClenon (talk)23:39, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure thatthis warning to a user is what you intended? I only see seven edits by the user - those onOccupy Wall Street andGazeta Wyborcza look to me like a "self-edit-war", i.e. only an edit war from the point of view of the robot that tags manual reverts. I suspect that the edit onGazeta Wyborcza should be reverted, but I'm unlikely to get involved there, and at least for the moment, I don't see an edit war there. TheOccupy Wall Street triple edit seems consistent with the adjective currently used in the lead there.Boud (talk)15:06, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I had only looked at the edits from the Special/Contributions view and saw the multiple edits of identical size and Revert tags and didn't think to investigate further. Thanks for the follow up._signed,Rosguill^talk15:08, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Rosguill, hope you're doing well.

There is currently a disagreement/dispute regarding the usage ofWP:UEGN at theBattle of Maritsa -[8]. Basically, me and another editor seem to understand the meaning of WP:UEGN differently. Rather than waste any of our times arguing about something that we both seem to understand differently, I thought I should approach an admin and ask them how exactly the policy is to be interpreted.

Perhaps you could take a look at the brief discussion we've had thus far on the TP, and maybe you might be able to clarify how exactly that policy is to be understood, as there seems to be some confusion. Of course, I would not be upset if I am mistaken in my interpretation. I would just like some guidance, is all. Best.Botushali (talk)16:03, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Botushali, having reviewed the talk page discussion, I think additional sources are needed to conclusively determine what the most common English name is for that place in the context of discussion of the 14th century. Fine is one such example. I don't think your argument that we should defer to the article nameShkodër quite holds, as that is clearly the common name of the city today, but not necessarily historically. Looking at the sources for the relevant sections ofShkodër, unfortunately most of them are not in English; the English sources are Fine, andBrill Encyclopedia of Islam, which prefers Ishkodra as it primarily discusses the Ottoman period, although it also opens the article by stating, the Turkish form of the name of the town of Shkodër/Shkodra (Slavonic, Skadar), which arguably indicates some preference for Shkodër/Shkodra in English. Searching quickly on Google Scholar does not provide conclusive results, as there's a lot of hits for non-English texts, as well as arguably separate topics likeLake Skadar and people with similarly spelled surnames. I think that the current evidence is inconclusive, and that a clearer answer could be determined by assembling a brief bibliography of English works on medieval Albanian history._signed,Rosguill^talk16:25, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks for the help! I will try and find some sources and post them in said discussion. Just double-checking, WP:UEGN does not necessarily mean the historical English term used by English speakers at the time of the event, if you catch my meaning? The word 'historical' is throwing me off a little.Botushali (talk)16:32, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Botushali correct—we are directed to use the term that English RS usetoday when discussing the given historical context in particular. Thus we use Leningrad when discussing the battles of WWII despite the city today being known as St Petersburg, but we don’t generally useCathay to refer to China orSaracens to refer to Arabs when discussing pre-modern history because these terms have fallen out of favor in RS even when discussing the historical context._signed,Rosguill^talk17:20, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Right, now that finally makes sense to me for the first time on Wiki, haha. Thank you very much.Botushali (talk)17:31, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Rosguill: You previously participated inthis April 2024 RfC on community contentious topics and their relationship with ArbCom's contentious topics. There is now anew RfC on this topic that you may be interested in. Best,KevinL (akaL235·t·c)20:03, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I may have been aware_signed,Rosguill^talk20:10, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your feedback is requested atWikipedia talk:WikiProject Weather on a "All RFCs" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list ofFeedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time byremoving your name.

(replacingYapperbot)SodiumBot (botop|talk)17:31, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for notifying DRN. As you saw, we have multiple open cases, and closing one or two helps.Robert McClenon (talk)20:04, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your feedback is requested atWikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard on a "All RFCs" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list ofFeedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time byremoving your name.

(replacingYapperbot)SodiumBot (botop|talk)00:31, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your input is requested atWikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Selim_beg. Thank you!Significa liberdade(she/her) (talk)04:44, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

I tried to answer your message on my page, but it kept giving me an error message. So I'm writing here. I hope that's OK.,

Could you please elaborate a bit more on your message? I'm not sure I fully understood it. I'll explain:

1. You said I had partial block rather than a full one. But aside from talk pages, I can't edit any other page, so making it very hard to redeem myself, help the community and show I stand behind my commitment that I wrote. So can you please explain what you mean by "given that it's a partial block"?
2. You said that it is in the community's hands at the ANI page to respond to me. I posted a lengthy explanation, apology and commitment going forward on the ANI page, and then posted my request for unblock on my page, as I was instructed to add the text to the bottom of my talk page, Toadspike left a message on my page with a reference to my post on the ANI page. And then you declined my request as an admin,.

So my question is - can you explain what I do now? Is my request still active even though you declined it? Do other people see it and can they respond to it? Do I need to submit it again or provide more information? Not really sure what I can/need to do now, and meanwhile I'm stuck.

Apologies again for posting here - it simply didn't let me respond to your message on my page. And thanks in advance if you can guide me and help clarify. :-)Sablc4747 (talk)22:18, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The community will continue to discuss at ANI, evaluating your response and decide whether to maintain, adjust or remove the block. You're allowed to continue engaging, although I'd recommend that the best approach is to respond when people pose direct questions to you and otherwise don't comment._signed,Rosguill^talk22:26, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello :) Hoping you might take a peekhere. Take care! --tony01:09, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Done_signed,Rosguill^talk01:13, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

...at AN/I yesterday.Hiobazard (talk/contribs)13:26, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]