User talk:Goldsztajn

Hi @Goldsztajn, nice to connect and thanks for offering assistance. I'm getting on well for now mostly editing biographies of scientists and public figures, starting to get into anti-vandalism work and new page patrolling. Feedback on my work always appreciated but happy to drop you a line if I need advice on particularly contested issues or edits. I got involved early on in a discussion about Sydney Sweeney's politics and raised a new RfC which got some support but was ultimately a mixed bag so I asked a more experienced outside editor for help, who closed the RfC deciding against my proposed inclusion. It was a good learning experience on how to deal with high-profile controversial edits. I respect that there was no majority consensus but not sure how to return this in the future as I still think it should be featured and editors clearly had different interpretations of WP: NPOV, WP: BLP, and WP:UNDUE but perhaps best to move on sometimes! ∞ HardScience (talk) 10:24, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

Hi @HardScience - I think you've taken a quite reasonable (and sensible) approach, I wouldn't worry too much. While in that case I'd probably have agreed with you, one of the most important things to get used to with Wikipedia is to take one's pleasure contributing in areas where one get things done. Some editors feel a need to engage in high profile, recent topics for lots of different reasons - but I'm generally not aware of many who do so then remain here long term. Wikipedia needs editors with skills (and patience) ... and having a PhD is usually a good sign (heh). Find a quiet patch and beaver away, find someone who you can collaborate with and get building. If you feel the need, join the frey every now and then to keep one honed and aware of the state of play, but far more often than not drama is best avoided. I've been here almost 20 years and I think part of that has been learning to stay away from drama, focussing on content and remembering that yesterday's battle can often be tomorrow's consensus (and vice versa!). Anyway, feel free to ask any questions and I'll try my best to help. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 12:58, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

Thank you! And yes great advice. I mostly stick to editing within my broad expertise and I do find having scientific training can be helpful with sourcing and technical editing but I attempted to branch out once or twice to "hot topics" to see what that's like but I think what you say makes a lot of sense, not a long game! Happy to circle back if any questions come up in the future, thanks for your time, appreciate it ∞ HardScience (talk) 15:31, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

Back already! Sorry will try not to bug you too much. I'm editing award sections of scientist biographies and one editor removed award additions claiming they need secondary sources to demonstrate importance. My intuition was to rely on primary sources for awards to ensure verifiability (because any secondary source can claim anything) but I can see the value of adding some secondary sources, to demonstrate notability of included awards. However, only relying on secondary sources seems very risky and some awards have their own wikipedia entry so I kind of took that as implicit evidence it's notable and some bodies have press announcements of their own but I guess I need to find independent coverage? It's a bit counterintuitive to look for secondary coverage of things that are obviously notable in science, like elections into well-regarded fellowships. I'm happy to try to find some sec sources for the less well-known ones perhaps (or leave them out) but do we really need to do this for things like fellowships of major academies and so on? And does a university announcement count as secondary or does it have to be mainstream media? I've not been doing this so just wanted to check.

Thanks for the guidance! ∞ HardScience (talk) 18:52, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

Hi @HardScience - you've stumbled (not meant in a bad way!) into an area of Wikipedia that actually operates somewhat outside the scope of pretty much everything else here. Essentially, academics and politians/judges are more or less the only groups that are assessed for notability with criteria that differ to all other subjects (see WP:NPOL for judges and politicans). Many living academics (most) would fail to satisfy the WP:GNG, but are considered notable because of WP:NPROF. That has given rise to a more complex approach with regard to sourcing for articles about academics. Basically, determining the legitimacy of sourcing with academics is often going to be a case by case basis. I've seen editors argue that an academic's CV hosted on a university website is legitimate as a source for information about the academic (I'd tend to agree, in most cases, but this could often sit somewhat on an edge). If the academic has an award from an institution of body that has an article on Wikipedia (ie has been determined to be notable in itself) then I think it would be reasonable to take the view that the organisation itself is suitable as a source of who it awards. Directories of fellows for a learned body would also be suitable (eg a Royal Society Fellow). There's nothing wrong with WP:PRIMARY sources for certain types of information - eg basic facts - in a civil action it would be perfectly reasonable to cite a court document as a source for who is the plaintiff and who is the defendant, but a court document would generlly not be used in explaining a court's decision or its significance, that would require secondary sources. Nevertheless, every and any reasearch grant an academic has won is not necessarily needed for inclusion - a Fulbright scholarship is far less significant than a MacCarthur Genius award. That will be an editorial/content decision. Anyway, WP:NPROF is quite detailed, if you've not read it before, I'd recommend reading it in full. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 02:57, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

Super helpful, thanks! I'll read WP:NPROF again in more detail. I think the concern of not wanting CV-style pages makes good sense. But what I struggle with is that I'm always looking to apply the same rule equally and fairly to all Wikipedia pages but many editors come up with different interpretations or applications of the same rule for specific individuals/pages. So if we need a secondary source for an award or achievement for person X we should maintain needing secondary sources for everyone with the same situation but that's not really how it is. I'll try to do more of a case-by-case evaluation, thanks again! ∞ HardScience (talk) ∞ HardScience (talk) 06:32, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

FYI, I have just reported this user to ANI: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#HardScience_and_Sander_van_der_Linden_sockpuppetry_-_ban_proposal SmartSE (talk) 12:14, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

Hi @Goldsztajn, had a long back and forth on whether there's enough reliable secondary sources to include history of anti-vaccination reporting in the lead of a journalist's biography (in attributed Wiki voice, to be conservative). I think many good policies were raised about being careful here but also I felt several mainstream news sources were discounted. I raised an RfC Paul_D._Thacker#RfC_-_Thacker_anti-vaccine_reporting|RfC to get broader community input. Do you think that's the right course of action? I realize there's other admins in the discussion there too so just wanted to be careful rather than keep reverting/changing. Thanks ∞ HardScience (talk) 10:17, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

They've now accused me of being some kind of sockpuppet for raising an RfC! ∞ HardScience (talk) 13:31, 6 July 2026 (UTC) I've replied at ANI. It may be true that some of these pages have histories of promotion or controversy but that doesn't involve me.

p.s. thanks for commenting there. I realize I didn't quite follow your advice and maybe doubled down on a controversial page discussion (again!) and seemingly pissed off a senior editor who seems to be patrolling those pages for any edits. I think my issue is that I get passionate about anti-science stuff and want to protect Wikipedia from pseudoscience but maybe I'm going about it the wrong way. I thought the RfC would de-escalate the situation. Anyway, I'm happy to back off from those pages, I really have no personal interest in them, I quite enjoy anti-vandalism work at the moment and new page patrolling if that's a desirable solution until I'm a more experienced editor perhaps. Sorry for the headache! ∞ HardScience (talk) 13:47, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

Hi @HardScience I've seen the filing and left a reply (was writing this as you commented again). Please take the following advice - don't reply any further at AN/I unless an administrator directly asks you a question. Let the discussion unfold and try not to be concerned about it (which is very hard I realise). It's frustrating because I have to treat you now as "under investigation" - for my own accountability as an admin. Unfortunately, the accusation made is very serious and I do not have the tools to prove or disprove it. At this point I am assuming good faith that the accusation is untrue; and my second piece of advice follows from that - give yourself a 1 revert rule for awhile. That is, if anything you edit is reverted, just move on. Do some gnome work on articles that need citations (Wikipedia:Citation_needed), or copy editing articles of Category:Beetles_of_Madagascar. Having strongly held views isn't actually a problem at Wikipedia - it would be unusual to find people here who don't - the skill is balancing those views with how this places works. It takes time, but there are rewards. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 13:55, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

I completely understand your position and no problem. The scale of the accusation is absolutely wild, I clearly stepped into a long-running controversy. I did try to engage the editor on multiple occasions before making edits. Anyway, the 1-revert rule is a great tip and I'll stick to quiet gnoming for now. I'll refrain from posting at ANI but if there's any evidence I can offer, happy to reply if/when asked. Either way, it's been a pleasure. ∞ HardScience (talk) 14:01, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

Here is a quick overview of highlights from the Wikimedia Foundation since our last issue on June 19. Please help translate. This edition uses the new annual plan goals for this fiscal year (July 2026–June 2027).

---

Highlights

• Wikipedia 25: Wikipedia's 25th birthday was celebrated with various projects designed to grow awareness and support for Wikipedia and the people who make it possible. This includes the virtual birthday event on January 15, which garnered 10,000 live viewers and 15,000 reactions. Find more details on all related projects and results in the program report.
• Sustainable use of Wikimedia infrastructure: A valid user-agent string will now be required for automated dumps downloads from the dumps.wikimedia.org website. Automated requests that provide a generic or empty user-agent will be blocked. This extends enforcement of the long standing user-agent policy. Access to dumps through Wikimedia Cloud Services will not change.
• Increasing account creation: The experiment providing direct access to “Create account” and “Log in” actions on mobile increased account creation by about 20% without negatively affecting edit quality. The feature will now be rolled out to all wikis on mobile web.

Annual Goals Progress on Engage
See also: Growth · Product Safety and Integrity · Tech News · Language and Internationalization · The Wikipedia Library · list of movement events · Wikifunctions & Abstract Wikipedia

• Add A Link: The Foundation deployed Add A Link as a default-on suggestion within Suggestion Mode. It is now launched on all wikis to all editors who have opted in to the Suggestion Beta Feature.
• Reusing references: Sub-referencing, the new MediaWiki feature that allows editors to reuse references with different details, was deployed to most small and medium-sized Wikipedia language versions.
• Wikifunctions: Check out the 71 new functions with implementations to get a taste of what functions have been created.
• Range calculator: The special page Special:RangeCalculator has been created. It allows users to find an IP range without needing to rely on external tools. Until now, this tool was only available to CheckUsers.
• Captcha verification: Abuse filters that are set to “require CAPTCHA verification” now also affect users with the skipcaptcha right, which includes most autoconfirmed users. Bots are exempted. This change only affects edits that trigger an abuse filter.
• Latest experiments: An upcoming experiment is testing two variations of a "thank you" badge shown to donors after a recent donation to deepen the relationship between donors and the Wikimedia movement. See all live, upcoming, and completed experiments in Product & Technology.
• Account security on private wikis: Two-factor authentication will become mandatory for user accounts on private wikis. This will protect private information from being exposed by an account with a compromised password.
• Tech News: The latest highlights from Tech News week 26 and 27 include users will now get a notification when they are blocked or unblocked from editing, or if this block changes. See also the 65 community submitted tasks that were resolved over the last two weeks.
• Team Challenges: The core organizing team for Wikimania is introducing Team Challenges, a different approach to Wikimania Hackathon. This year, Wikimedians and professionals from other fields will join forces to undertake one of the 2026 technical challenges.

Annual Goals Progress on Enable
See also: Research newsletter · WikiLearn News · other newsletters on MediaWiki.org

• Wikimedia Hackathon: A look at the 2026 edition of Wikimedia Hackathon which brought together 216 participants from 29 countries building, collaborating, and shaping the future together.
• Wikimedia Hubs: The Hub Fund will pause funding for new pilots in fiscal year 2026–2027 to align with the work on the Ecosystem of Movement Organizations and the Global Resource Distribution Committee. Existing pilots in transition will be offered an additional year of funding.

Annual Goals Progress on Protect
See also: Global Advocacy blog · Global Advocacy Newsletter · Policy blog

• Open Knowledge And Digital Rights: Wikimedians shared their reflections on how Digital Rights and Inclusion Forum reinforced the role of our movement within broader digital rights conversations.

Annual Goals Progress on Reach
See also: Wikimedia Apps · Readers

• Journalism Award: Wikimedia Foundation announced three journalists from Africa as recipients of the Open the Knowledge Journalism Awards, run in partnership with the International Center for Journalists (ICFJ). The awards celebrate the essential role journalists play in creating well-researched articles that volunteer editors can use as source materials to develop content on Wikipedia and other Wikimedia projects. In total, 320 submissions were received from 40 African countries.

Other Movement-curated newsletters & news
Diff blog · Goings-on · Planet Wikimedia · Signpost (en) · Kurier (de) · Actualités du Wiktionnaire (fr) · Regards sur l'actualité de la Wikimedia (fr) · Wikimag (fr) · Education · GLAM · Milestones · Wikidata · Central and Eastern Europe · other newsletters

Subscribe or unsubscribe · Receive the bulletin by email · Help translate

For information about the Bulletin and to read previous editions, see the project page on Meta-Wiki. If you have feedback or suggestions about the bulletin, let us know at foundationbulletin@wikimedia.org. For questions about the Wikimedia Foundation's work, contact us!

MediaWiki message delivery 23:54, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

why can't t i submit my villatuna page? --Jared Vinzenz (talk) 00:41, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

Hi @Jared Vinzenz - looks like the article is in draft space. At the moment, it does not have independent, reliable sources that would make it satisfy WP:NCORP. Therefore, it cannot be in Wikipedia. Facebook or the company's website are not considered reliable under Wikipedia's guidelines. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 12:38, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

ok Jared Vinzenz (talk) 10:30, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

Hi, Goldsztajn. You are cordially invited to the brand new Wikipedia:Mentorship noticeboard. I get the impression sometimes that we mentors are each toiling in our own cubbyhole, quietly answering mentee questions with little to no interaction with other mentors. I think we have a lot to share and learn from each other, and I know it will make me feel better just having the opportunity to interact with you and other mentors there, and I hope it will for you, too. Looking forward to hearing your feedback. Please take the § Survey when you get there! Mathglot (talk) 02:55, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Library: Books & Bytes
Issue 75, May–June 2026

• New partnerships: The Telegraph, Marg, The Tribune newspapers
• Tech tip: Expired partnerships

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team – 14:43, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

(This message was sent to User:Goldsztajn and is being posted here due to a redirect.)

Hello can I you a question? I need some help on my page on the one I can edit I was told to ask you for help. --L3xie 25$ (talk) 08:48, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

Hi @L3xie 25$ - what are you trying to do? Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 09:57, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

@L3xie 25$ If you are trying to create your user page: try this video for help. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 10:04, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

Administrator Elections | RFC phase

The RFC phase of the May 2026 administrator elections has started. There are 20 RFCs for consideration. You can participate in the RFC phase at Wikipedia:Administrator elections/May 2026/RFC phase.

Any questions or issues can be asked on the election talk page. Thank you for your participation. Happy electing.

You're receiving this message because you signed up for the mailing list. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the list.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:02, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

Here is a quick overview of highlights from the Wikimedia Foundation since our last issue on July 3. Please help translate. The work follows annual plan goals for this fiscal year (July 2026–June 2027).

---

Highlights

• Reflections from around the puzzle globe: Wikimedia Foundation CEO, Bernadette Meehan shares her reflections from around the puzzle globe.
• Wikimania 2026: Wikimania is happening this week! After the event, all streamed sessions will be linked in the program on Eventyay and later uploaded to Commons.
• Grantmaking: The Global Resource Distribution Committee has published a Grantmaking Strategy draft that sets out a renewed approach to how the Wikimedia Foundation's Community Fund is distributed across the Wikimedia Movement. The GRDC is requesting feedback from volunteers and affiliates, regardless of whether they are grantees or not.
• Movement Ecosystem: A proposal that would update movement affiliate recognition and establish new, connected criteria for eligibility to receive Community Fund grants is now available for community review. You are invited to read the proposal and participate in the discussion until August 7.
• AI's impact on Free Knowledge: How AI threatens the social contract of free knowledge and what we can do about it.

Annual Goals Progress on Engage
See also: Growth · Product Safety and Integrity · Tech News · Language and Internationalization · The Wikipedia Library · list of movement events · Wikifunctions & Abstract Wikipedia

• The Wikipedia Library: Five new collections were added to the Wikipedia Library and a course developed by leading experts in academic publishing and open knowledge was launched.
• Women+ contributions in Wikimedia Tech: A guide based on lived experience on how to address some of the invisible barriers for women+ in more technical Wikimedia spaces and recommendations to become more inclusive. Help further by filling out this survey to better understand technical contributions by women+ across Wikimedia projects until July 20.
• Structured Experimentation: A reflection on the first year of structured experimentation highlights successful experiments such as Paste Check, Reference Check, and Tone Check, which improved editing outcomes and have been rolled out to more users, as well as experiments that did not lead to product changes.
• Revise Tone test ended: The A/B test of Revise Tone ended on July 9. It showed that newcomer task completion rates increased by 38.7% compared to the default Copyedit task, with no decrease in edit quality. The feature is now available for everyone on the Arabic, English, French, and Portuguese Wikipedias. The plan is to release Revise Tone to more wikis.
• Keeping mentor list up to date: Administrators on wikis where Growth features are available can now automatically remove inactive mentors by configuring the settings at Special:CommunityConfiguration/Mentorship to keep the list updated. Mentors are experienced contributors who opt in to help new users on-wiki through the Growth Features.
• Wikifunctions: How Abstract Wikipedia fits into the Wikimedia Foundation's annual plan FY26/27.
• Wikidata: The latest Wikidata Platform newsletter (July edition) shares how to identify and rewrite queries that rely on Blazegraph-specific extensions and affected by the migration off Blazegraph.
• Discussion Tools: On English Wikipedia, DiscussionTools' Usability Improvements has now become default for talk pages. You can opt-out of these changes at any time in user preferences. With this, Discussion Tools are now fully available at all wikis.
• Tech News: The latest highlights from Tech News week 28 and 29 include the new Parsoid parser continues to be deployed to additional wikis, making it easier to introduce new reading and editing features. See also the 72 community submitted tasks that were resolved over the last two weeks. Overall, from April – June 2026 about 337 community tasks were resolved by the Wikimedia Foundation.
• Language inclusivity at Wikimania 2026: New approaches to translation and interpretation will be tested at Wikimania this year.
• Call for submissions open for Wikimedia Latin America Conference 2026: The Wikimedia community in Latin America has opened the call for session proposals for the Wikimedia Latin America Conference 2026. Community members are invited to submit proposals for the conference program by August 10.

Annual Goals Progress on Protect
See also: Global Advocacy blog · Global Advocacy Newsletter · Policy blog

• Advocacy: China again blocks the Wikimedia Foundation as a permanent observer to the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO).
• UK Online Safety Act: Ofcom, the United Kingdom's Office of Communications, announced that Wikipedia is not designated as a Category 1 service under the Online Safety Act (OSA). This is an important and welcomed outcome as a Category 1 designation could have included privacy and safety risks to our global community of volunteers.
• UN Open Source Week edit-a-thon: Volunteers created 60 new Wikipedia articles and made nearly 700 updates to improve Wikipedia's coverage of UN and open source topics at the second UN Open Source Week edit-a-thon co-hosted by Wikimedia Foundation.
• "Don’t Blink": The latest developments from around the world about protecting the Wikimedia model, its people and its values.

Annual Goals Progress on Reach
See also: Wikimedia Apps · Readers

• "A Wiki Minute" videos: New videos are added to the series answering some of the most common questions such as "Do you still need Wikipedia when AI can answer anything?" and "Does Wikipedia push a political agenda?".
• Wikipedia 25 brand collaboration in Indonesia: On 4 July, the Jakarta-based street wear company Ageless Galaxy launched a Wikipedia 25 collection, the first ever Wikipedia Brand Collaboration in Asia. The apparel collection featured hats, t-shirts, and a jigsaw puzzle cardigan. Wikimedians in Indonesia joined Ageless Galaxy for a launch party.

Other updates

• Leadership: Reflections on 15 years at Wikimedia Foundation and a new chapter.
• Enterprise: GNOMI Partners with Wikimedia Enterprise to Bring Trusted Human Knowledge to Its AI News Agent.

Board and Board committee updates
See also: Wikimedia Foundation Board noticeboard · Affiliations Committee Newsletter

• Board Elections Eligibility: There are new proposed eligibility criteria for standing as a candidate in Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees election now available for feedback. The requirements are more specific and detailed than in years past, to both inform the community of what the Board needs and to create multiple pathways to the Board for Wikimedians.

Other Movement-curated newsletters & news
Diff blog · Goings-on · Planet Wikimedia · Signpost (en) · Kurier (de) · Actualités du Wiktionnaire (fr) · Regards sur l'actualité de la Wikimedia (fr) · Wikimag (fr) · Education · GLAM · Milestones · Wikidata · Central and Eastern Europe · other newsletters

Subscribe or unsubscribe · Help translate

For information about the Bulletin and to read previous editions, see the project page on Meta-Wiki. If you have feedback or suggestions about the bulletin, let us know at foundationbulletin@wikimedia.org. For questions about the Wikimedia Foundation's work, contact us!

MediaWiki message delivery 23:23, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

how do i add a photo to an existing page --Vinnette111 (talk) 22:02, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

Hi @Vinnette111 - I've left a welcome note and links on your talk page, you'll find information there about adding images. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 12:54, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

Hi! Could someone please explain how to add an image to a page? --Valerii367 (talk) 18:10, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

Hi @Valerii367 I've left a welcome note and links on your talk page, you'll find information there about adding images. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 12:55, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

I edited my submission but don't know its status. it's about Shiriki-Pitch --Ebarkhordar (talk) 05:30, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

Hi @Ebarkhordar - it was not accepted because it was made using large language models. The guideline covering this issue is here: Wikipedia:Writing articles with large language models. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 12:58, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

Hi Goldsztajn, just wanted to say hello and thank you for being my mentor

YemeniPhysicist (talk) 18:55, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

Hi @YemeniPhysicist - welcome and I hope you enjoy contributing. Feel free to ask me about editing and hopefully I'll be able to answer any questions you have. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 13:00, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

Women in Red | August 2026, Vol 12, Issue 8, Nos 358, 359, 378, 379, 380 Events: New: Alphabet run: Countries starting with N and O | Indigenous women | Women born before 1900 Continuing (year-long initiatives): #1day1woman | Sports More ... Announcements: On 25 July, at Wikimania Paris, Women in Red was named the Coolest Project! Tip of the month: Read the essay Determining Native American and Indigenous Canadian identities to understand the criteria for a woman's status as Native American or Indigenous Canadian. Other ways to participate: Become a member. You can always opt-out of notifications. Join the conversations on our talkpage. Help us plan future events and add any general ideas on developing the project. Follow us on social media: Instagram & Pinterest

--Chocmilk03 (talk 21:43, 30 July 2026 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Hi How can I upload a the history of Rahinajaat and it's founder --Monthlyrahinajaat (talk) 05:18, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

Hi @Monthlyrahinajaat - please don't dump large amounts of text onto a talk page - it's best to provide a link to the location of the material. In terms of creating an article the best way for someone new is to edit the article as a draft and then submit through articles for creation. Please be aware Wikipedia does not accept material generated by large language models ("AI"). I've left a set of introductory links on your talk page. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 05:44, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

Hi there, My name is Paul Carrizales, I'm a photographer in Houston Texas, I only want to upload great images onto Wikipedia. I would only upload images that subjects would be proud to share or have to be seen. Help me share my images. Best, Paul Carrizales --Paulcarrizales (talk) 02:27, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

Hello @Paulcarrizales - welcome. If you want to contribute images it is worth considering Wikipedia Commons where most images used on Wikipedia are held. In case you are not aware, in general images added to Wikipedia must be free to use under all conditions, you cannot retain intellectual prorperty rights to image you add. I can't help you share your images, but I can help you with issues related to editing or adding images. I've left some links on your talk page, feel free to ask my any questions. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 09:25, 3 August 2026 (UTC)