Welcome to Wikipedia! Listed below are some brief introductions containing all the basics needed to use, comment on, and contribute to Wikipedia.

• Main Introduction — What is Wikipedia?
• The Five Pillars — What are the principles behind Wikipedia?
• Quick Introductions to:

• Policies and guidelines — How does Wikipedia actually work?
• Talk pages — How do I communicate in Wikipedia?
• Referencing — How do I add sources to articles?
• Uploading images — How do I add and use images?
• Navigating Wikipedia — How do I find my way around?

• What Wikipedia is not - even though everyone can edit it, Wikipedia is still an encyclopedia.

If you want to know more about a specific subject, Help:Help explains how to navigate the help pages.

• If you wish to express an opinion or make a comment, Where to ask questions will point you in the correct direction.
• If you would like to edit an article, the Basic tutorial will show you how, and How to help will give you some ideas for things to edit.
• If you would like to create a new article, Starting an article will explain how to create a new page, with tips for success and a link to Wikipedia's Article Wizard, which can guide you through the process of submitting a new article to Wikipedia.
• For more support and some friendly contacts to get you started, the Editors' Welcome page should be your next stop!

• Help:Starting editing

Good luck and happy editing. ``` Buster Seven Talk 13:47, 9 October 2012 (UTC) reply

Thank you for your recent submission to Articles for Creation. Your article submission has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. You are welcome to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit if you feel they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, you can find it at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Magedoom.
• To edit the submission, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, or on the reviewer's talk page. Please remember to link to the submission!
• You can also get live chat help from experienced editors.

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! LionMans Account ( talk) 18:09, 3 July 2013 (UTC) reply

Thank you for your recent submission to Articles for Creation. Your article submission has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. You are welcome to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit if you feel they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, you can find it at Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Magedoom.
• To edit the submission, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, or on the reviewer's talk page. Please remember to link to the submission!
• You can also get live chat help from experienced editors.

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! The Ukulele Guy - Aggie80 ( talk) 11:33, 19 July 2013 (UTC) reply

Thank you for your recent submission to Articles for Creation. Your article submission has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. You are welcome to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit if you feel they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, you can find it at Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Magedoom.
• To edit the submission, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, or on the reviewer's talk page. Please remember to link to the submission!
• You can also get live chat help from experienced editors.

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! Pratyya ^(Hello!) 13:42, 19 July 2013 (UTC) reply

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Magedoom 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/Magedoom 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. TTN ( talk) 11:47, 28 September 2019 (UTC) reply

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Extra Ordinary (film), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Wind ( check to confirm |  fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 12:08, 5 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{ NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 02:32, 24 November 2020 (UTC) reply

Your recent editing history at List of video games notable for negative reception shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. JOE BRO 64 20:12, 28 January 2021 (UTC) reply

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for persistently making disruptive edits. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{ unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  -- ferret ( talk) 12:49, 29 January 2021 (UTC) reply

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{ NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 00:36, 23 November 2021 (UTC) reply

Hello, I'm Denniss. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Nebelwerfer have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse or the Help desk. if you see something to discuss take it to talk but do not introduce fals information/translation just because you don't know german terms Denniss ( talk) 10:43, 13 November 2022 (UTC) reply

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Cortador reported by User:Denniss (Result: ). Thank you. Denniss ( talk) 17:14, 13 November 2022 (UTC) reply

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{ NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 01:09, 29 November 2022 (UTC) reply

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. — Czello ^{( music)} 08:35, 31 May 2023 (UTC) reply

You have been blocked from editing from certain pages ( Boris Johnson) for a period of 2 weeks for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text at the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.   ~ ToBeFree ( talk) 16:36, 31 May 2023 (UTC) reply

You have recently made edits related to articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. This is a standard message to inform you that articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles is a designated contentious topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see Wikipedia:Contentious topics.

If you reinstate disputed material about living people without a consensus (in violation of WP:BLPRESTORE), you may be topic banned from editing about living people, or blocked from editing. It does not matter whether this is done using three or four reverts; two are sufficient and even one can be a policy violation. ~ ToBeFree ( talk) 16:40, 31 May 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).

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

---

Request reason:

I did not reinstate disputed material. The disputed material was an unqualified statement that Johnson has seven children (and was tagged as such), despite multiple reliable sources stating that he has "at least" seven children. The disputed material was reinstated by User:DeFacto and User:Czello Cortador ( talk) 17:02, 31 May 2023 (UTC) reply

Decline reason:

You were edit warring on that biography. The block is clearly necessary. PhilKnight ( talk) 18:29, 31 May 2023 (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.

The words "at least" and the citations added in [1], [2], [3] and [4] have been edit warred back into the article without a consensus to do so having been found on the talk page. You are currently blocked to prevent you from continuing. ~ ToBeFree ( talk) 17:12, 31 May 2023 (UTC) reply

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Boris Johnson, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A " generic title" error. References show this error when they have a generic placeholder title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title to the reference. ( Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) ( talk) 08:58, 28 June 2023 (UTC) reply

Hi Cortador. My name is Marco Silva and I am a senior journalist with BBC News in London. I noticed how much you contributed to the article about Sultan Al Jaber. Is there any chance we can chat in private? I have a couple of questions for you about this article and about the editing work you have been doing. To be crystal clear: I am not looking for an interview, just an off-the-record chat. Please let me know your thoughts when you have a moment. Many thanks. MarcoSilvaUK ( talk) 14:12, 19 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Hello @ MarcoSilvaUK. I'm happy to have a chat. Do you have means to be contacted? I found your Twitter profile, but was unable to DM you as I'm not verified. Cortador ( talk) 14:20, 19 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Hi @ Cortador. Thanks for getting back to me so quickly. Please email me via my personal page ( Special:EmailUser/MarcoSilvaUK) and we'll take it from there. Much appreciated. MarcoSilvaUK ( talk) 14:25, 19 July 2023 (UTC) reply

@ MarcoSilvaUK Done. Cortador ( talk) 14:50, 19 July 2023 (UTC) reply

"Hi!" - Please: Use the Informations i gave, instead revert all generally, thankyou! I don't have the time & the knowledge to do the things here as you want, "sorry!". Gentle: Hungchaka ( talk) 17:19, 27 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Please do not misrepresent my posts, as you did here. I was not complaining about any sources, I was asking how you selected them, to help understand the weight to be applied to your use of them. -- DeFacto ( talk). 20:03, 30 August 2023 (UTC) reply

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. -- DeFacto ( talk). 15:10, 31 August 2023 (UTC) reply

This edit summary includes a quite explicit assumption of bad faith. The editor already said their edit was based on a specific and expressed reasoning, but you directly imply that their real reasoning was something else "you not liking them". You are a generally good editor and I do not wish to see you get zucked. Please take this as a friendly but vigorous encouragement to stop those kinds of comments, in ES or on talk, right away. Cambial — foliar❧ 12:07, 12 September 2023 (UTC) reply

Czello has displayed disruptive behaviour in the past e.g. false accusations of three-revert rule breaks. I can only give people so much benefit. Cortador ( talk) 06:59, 13 September 2023 (UTC) reply

Are you still on this? It's been months, and you were edit warring, several times, as you continue to do. Let it go. — Czello ^{( music)} 07:19, 13 September 2023 (UTC) reply

I see you have moved from a break of the three-edit rule to just "edit warring" to hide the fact that your accusations were fabricated. Also, since you apparently monitor my talk page (as evident by you replying to a comment you weren't even tagged in within minutes), I don't think you should be talking about anyone's inability to move on. Cortador ( talk) 07:28, 13 September 2023 (UTC) reply

Your talk page is still on my watchlist after the previous times I've had to warn you about edit warring. I've not had to "fabricate" a reason to do so: you must be aware of the fact you have a habit of edit warring ideologies into infoboxes when you don't have consensus. — Czello ^{( music)} 08:22, 13 September 2023 (UTC) reply

And you talk about not being able to let go. Well, have fun with whatever obsession you have with me. Cortador ( talk) 08:32, 13 September 2023 (UTC) reply

Kia ora @ Cortador. Just want to say thanks again for restoring the edits I made to the page for the Conservative Party (UK). As you can see here, the user Czello left me a message threatening to block me, after I tried reaching out to him to get him to come to the talk page. Bit irritiating. Aubernas ( talk) 10:23, 29 September 2023 (UTC) reply

@ AubernasNo problem. I think it would have been more productive if anyone had actually voiced any specific issues they had with the addition, but none of the other editors did that. Cortador ( talk) 18:53, 30 September 2023 (UTC) reply

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

Note although this is a 3rr warning the page is (in fact) under 1RR, you have reverted more than once. Slatersteven ( talk) 12:19, 10 November 2023 (UTC) reply

@ SlaterstevenThe page states: "You must follow the bold-revert-discuss cycle if your change is reverted. You may not reinstate your edit until you post a talk page message discussing your edit and have waited 24 hours from the time of this talk page message." The BRD page in turn states: "When reverting, be specific about your reasons in the edit summary and use links if needed. Look at the article's history and its talk page to see if a discussion has begun. If not, you may begin one."

Emphasis mine. None of the users who reverted the edit have a given a sufficient reason, and none have bothered to post a reply on the talk page. You are the ones engaging in edit warring by reverting edits while not following what a BRD cycle asks for. Cortador ( talk) 12:30, 10 November 2023 (UTC) reply

You only posted that talk page discussion today. Slatersteven ( talk) 12:38, 10 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Because nobody had bothered to give a reason for the reverts. I expect a good-faith effort when edits are reverted. Cortador ( talk) 12:39, 10 November 2023 (UTC) reply

"This was added yesterday and needs to be discussed if added. Reversion was correct" is a reason. Slatersteven ( talk) 12:41, 10 November 2023 (UTC) reply

No addition requires a discussion just because, not even articles about contentious topics. If you want a discussion, give a reason why you think that information doesn't belong in the first sentence of the lead. Cortador ( talk) 12:50, 10 November 2023 (UTC) reply

My last word here, you have been warned, if you revert again I will report you. Slatersteven ( talk) 12:51, 10 November 2023 (UTC) reply

I suggest you take a good look at WP:BOOMERANG then. Cortador ( talk) 13:05, 10 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Hi Cortador, regarding this talk page discussion that you have started, could you add a proposal for specific wording to be added into the article? Having closed the previous discussion as without consensus, I believe it would lead to a more lasting outcome if specific text was proposed to be included in the article, which can then be approved or rejected by consensus. Thank you. Onetwothreeip ( talk) 21:12, 10 November 2023 (UTC) reply

@ Onetwothreeip The specific wording should be: "Vivek Ramaswamy is a climate change denier".

That said, I disagree with there being no consensus. Consensus should be formed on arguments made, and the no side has failed to demonstrate why Ramaswamy shouldn't not have this label, and/or didn't bring up sources that deny that he is a climate change denier. Cortador ( talk) 07:11, 11 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Thanks, you can commence a new RfC which includes that suggested wording, along with the paragraph it would be contained in. However, an explicit description as "climate change denier" did not gain consensus, as discussion participants were not convinced that the sources you provided adequately support the proposed description, so you may wish to propose an alternative description to gain consensus. On volume I would have determined that there was consensus against, but I considered there to be roughly equal weight between the arguments. Onetwothreeip ( talk) 07:52, 11 November 2023 (UTC) reply

RfC aren't decided by majority vote. I didn't see anyone bring up sources that deny that Ramaswamy is a denier, so to be honest, I don't see how you came to the conclusion that there was equal weight between arguments. Cortador ( talk) 08:25, 11 November 2023 (UTC) reply

It's not about sources refuting the ones you provided, it's about how editors have interpreted the sources. Onetwothreeip ( talk) 08:39, 11 November 2023 (UTC) reply

There's nothing to interpret. The source are clear. Only one editor had an issue with them, stating that two are biased, which isn't sufficient grounds to reject them.

Also, the "No" have provided no sources whatsoever. Cortador ( talk) 13:31, 11 November 2023 (UTC) reply

In this edit, you added a source ^[1] but the title you added in the "title=" parameter does not match the title actually used in the source. ^[2] Repeatedly doing this could be construed as disruptive. Please take care to accurately reflect the content and titles of sources in the references. Cheers. Cambial — foliar❧ 18:42, 15 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{ NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 00:41, 28 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Hi, I hope you'll forgive me, I've struck your last !vote at AfD/Hohem as you'd already !voted delete. This isn't an attempt at suppressing your point of view. It's just that when people !vote several times, it gets harder for the closing admin to assess the consensus. Best wishes, Elemimele ( talk) 13:01, 30 November 2023 (UTC) reply

I have requested a third opinion regarding the disagreement at Talk:Cook Partisan Voting Index Hirolovesswords ( talk) 19:24, 22 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Cortador, I know you have been given a contentious topics warning. Please avoid commenting on editors as you have been doing in our recent discussions. When you shift from commenting on my arguments to commenting on my understandings you are no longer WP:FOC. Springee ( talk) 12:18, 11 January 2024 (UTC) reply

I empathize with your positions here, and I see that we agree on certain issues. I think your time will be better served avoiding the back and forth with other editors. I can certainly relate to your frustrations, but sometimes the best thing to do is to disengage if you know it's not likely to have any effect on swaying opinion or increasing consensus. Let's focus on improving the Far right section and try to keep it condensed down to what is DUE, with a few short sentences. We have a good start, we just need to be patient and open minded. Cheers. DN ( talk) 20:18, 11 January 2024 (UTC) reply

I'll be open-minded if I can see the same from others. All I get with these reverts are a bunch of links and no explanation. Both Springee and Muboshgu have claimed that GOP support for GRCT is a minority viewpoint, and both have failed to back that up with anything. Cortador ( talk) 14:18, 12 January 2024 (UTC) reply

I really don't see much point in going back and forth with Springee. I think you should both disengage for a bit. I'm happy to work with you, so if you just want to use me as your sounding board I'm happy to act as a buffer until things calm down. Cheers. DN ( talk) 19:12, 13 January 2024 (UTC) reply

Just a quick suggestion. I would not try to hold any other editor's hands and explain policies or walk them through justifications, at least not more than once. Sometimes it's OK to stop engaging if an editor clearly and simply can't or won't acknowledge things. Constantly going back and forth on tangents tends to distract from where the discussion is supposed to go. Focus on your arguments and which sources say what, and how it affects the article. Avoid discussions that tend to end up in WP:BATTLE and WP:LAWYER territory. Not that you are doing anything wrong, I also struggle with these issues myself, but I wanted to let you know that sort of thing happens, and can create unnecessary stress. I like to remind myself I do not control consensus, I simply abide by it. Cheers. DN ( talk) 23:47, 19 March 2024 (UTC) reply

The tag isn't appropriate so there's nothing to replace it with. If you disagree, fine, but take it to the talk page and/or bring in an RfC &c. to show me how wrong I am. In any case, if there's an issue with any fact in the article, tag that but it is cited, so "needs cites" is definitely the wrong template for whatever the problem is you see.

(For Mount Qianliyan, btw, yeah, fair enough. There are cites on that article but, yeah, they should be replaced with a higher quality source so the template fits, kinda. For Qianliyan Island, no, they're journalistic and scholarly sources already and there's no actual problem with them as far as I can see. You're welcome to explain the issue on the talk page, ofc.) —  LlywelynII 17:26, 4 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you.

Despite the scary tag, I posted there already that I saw you finally engaging on the talk page. Hopefully you keep things there and that whole bit blows over. —  LlywelynII 18:26, 4 February 2024 (UTC) reply