User talk:ScottishFinnishRadish/Archive 53

Buster7, happy holidays to you as well! ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:03, 22 December 2025 (UTC)

Happy holidays and a prosperous 2026!

ScottishFinnishRadish, 'twas lovely to meet you at WCNA (even if... well, you know better than most how that weekend went). I also love the soap! Thank you for that great gift (even if I skipped on the hot sauce). I greatly look forward to serving on ArbCom together! Happy holidays, and the best to you and yours in 2026 :)

HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 00:50, 22 December 2025 (UTC)

Thanks, HouseBlaster. That certainly was a surreal weekend. I'm glad you enjoy the soap and I definitely understand skipping the hot sauce. Just ask Moneytrees about its potency. I'm glad you decided to stand for the committee, and I look forward to working with you. Happy holidays, merry christmas, joyous solstice, and above all else: stay warm! ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:24, 22 December 2025 (UTC)

Yes, I was looking a lot like that monkey!!! Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 17:54, 22 December 2025 (UTC)

Currently bundled up indoors by the fire... HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 22:37, 22 December 2025 (UTC)

Hello ScottishFinnishRadish: Enjoy the holiday season and winter solstice if it's occurring in your area of the world, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:22, 22 December 2025 (UTC)

Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:22, 22 December 2025 (UTC)

Best holiday wishes to you as well, Gråbergs Gråa Sång! ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:43, 22 December 2025 (UTC)

Hello ScottishFinnishRadish: Enjoy the holiday season and winter solstice if it's occurring in your area of the world, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, Iljhgtn (talk) 18:16, 24 December 2025 (UTC)

Iljhgtn (talk) 18:16, 24 December 2025 (UTC)

Thank you Iljhgtn. Happy holidays to you and yours as well. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:48, 24 December 2025 (UTC)

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2026!

Hello ScottishFinnishRadish, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2026. Happy editing, Abishe (talk) 07:24, 25 December 2025 (UTC) Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

Abishe (talk) 07:24, 25 December 2025 (UTC)

Thank you, you as well! ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:51, 25 December 2025 (UTC)

To be clear I have no interest, stake or otherwise in the dispute. However, non-administrators need to know what the "LLM use" was in your block of Zxilef: "Clearly not here to build an encyclopedia - personal attacks, LLM use, trolling" (bolded). You later mentioned you are "not terribly concerned with the LLM use" however due to you mentioning it in the block, which was most possibly done as a one-off flippant side-remark, it was mentioned as a decline reason for an unblock request. Not to mention that LLM use is not addressed by any policy or guideline apart from articles created from scratch and talk pages (the intepretation and application of both of which is irregular/contextual and also just enforced only by those who simply oppose AI; I know Thryduulf would happen to agree with me) ~2025-44011-37 (talk) 15:16, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

The block was a couple weeks ago, so I don't have diffs handy, not do I have the time to check through a couple hundred diffs to find what concerned me. LLM use, like any other type of editing, can be disruptive, but like I said that wasn't my chief concern. You could also take a look at my user page which might shed a bit of light on my thoughts about LLM use on Wikipedia. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 02:30, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

Happy New Year!

Hello ScottishFinnishRadish: Thanks for all of your contributions to Wikipedia, and have a great New Year! Cheers, Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 19:23, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year snowman}} to people's talk pages with a friendly message.

Happy new year to you as well, Iggy the Swan! ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 02:13, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

Hey,

I've opened a discussion at Talk:Auschwitz concentration camp#Requested move 17 December 2025.

Although my suggestion wasn't accepted, I believe there's a consensus to move to "Auschwitz" (plus, as it's the WP:COMMONNAME as shown by ngrams).

Can you please take a look? IdanST (talk) 11:14, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

Have you spoken to the closer? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:28, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

No, I'll speak with them. IdanST (talk) 18:45, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

Could we please get a quick revdel at No Kings to remove today's personal attacks added by a TA? - Adolphus79 (talk) 15:42, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

 Done (talk page watcher) Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:45, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

@Ivanvector or ScottishFinnishRadish, one more time, please? Same user, same page... - Adolphus79 (talk) 17:51, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

Yep. Blocked extra hard this time. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:04, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

Thank you... that was their final warning, so I was getting ready for an AIV report... lol - Adolphus79 (talk) 18:05, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

I wouldn't have bothered to warn them at all, honestly. Maybe a 4im on their first edit if I was feeling generous. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:07, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for picking up my slack, Ivanvector. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:28, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

Hi ScottishFinnishRadish; Another editor, Mandrus, is apparently trying to intentionally misrepresent your previous close of an RfC regarding Donald Trump from 9-10 months ago where you stated:

"There is no concensus to adopt the proposed text. Roughly half of the respondents support the conciseness and structure of the proposal, while roughly half say that the reduced text is too concise and does not adequately summarize sources, violating NPOV." ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:06, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

I'm using the word intentionally here because the tenor and content of Mandrus's edits appear to have fully deceived three other editors (BootsED, GoodDay and WikiGrower1) into believing that your RfC was supporting one position to the exclusion of the other; he has slanted their viewpoint at the same time that he has apparently reversed his position on reducing the size of one of the subheadings in the Trump article, which, occurring at the same time, seems beyond a mere 'coincidence'.

Is it possible for you to somehow correct the misquotation by the other editors just named as to the meaning of your "no consensus" close from last May. Its not possible to report Mandrus for the misrepresentation, since he is being given a 'free-pass' for questionable edit conduct (apparently due to his good editing from 10 years ago) as was done at the previous ANI against him filed by sysops about 3 months ago. I am asking if you can repair the misquotations of your "no consensus" close being made in the discussion on the Trump Talk page now if you have a way to accomplish this; the comments from Mandrus have otherwise seemingly driven away Riposte97 and Bill Williams (its supporters) from further participation in this discussion. If there is no way for you to repair the mis-statements of your "no consensus" close, then it might be appropriate to just close this Talk page discussion as having been fully tainted by the misrepresentations of your previous close by other editors with further progress unlikely. The discussion is on the Trump Talk page for "Bulking down the article from 345Kb". ErnestKrause (talk) 16:14, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

You'll have to give me links to the specific comments from the other editors in question so I can review the context. I looked over the section you mentioned and didn't see any explicit discussion of that close, but I certainly could have missed it. As far as a free pass goes, this is clearly covered by WP:AMPOL and can be raised at WP:AE. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:58, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

Here is one of the most recent citations, though you should be able to find more about this RfC being misquoted in that discussion here: "A decision to do this was decided against via an RfC. Going ahead and making these changes would require an RfC. So please don't encourage people to violate an RfC. BootsED (talk) 21:18, 3 January 2026 (UTC)". The phase "decided against via an RfC" is being applied to your 'No consensus' result throughout that section. I can provide the individual quotes. I'm asking only if you have a way to correct the misstatements being made in that discussion concerning the misreading of your "no consensus' close of that RfC. ErnestKrause (talk) 17:06, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

Are they linking directly to that RFC? Are there any other RFCs that they might be referring to? BootsED and Mandruss, are you referring to the RFC I closed here? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:49, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

Responding to ping. What "referring to" are you referring to? That said, I'm not going to spend a lot of energy defending myself against specious, AGF-free complaints. Nobody supports EK on these complaints. If you have the time, you're welcome to try to mediate this, whatever this is. ―Mandruss ☎ 2¢. IMO. 18:17, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

The RfC was an extension of another conversation currently archived in Talk:Donald Trump/Archive 198 where Ernest proposed a removal of content due to byte size which was then spun-off into the RfC. My concern here is that Ernest is now going forwards with his proposed removals through a third-party editor several months later while discussion is ongoing and reverting attempts to keep the status quo. He’s also created another talk page discussion without an RfC and claiming that a “current consensus” exists for him to make his changes, although there was never an RfC about establishing a new consensus. BootsED (talk) 18:30, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

You appear to be confusing the RfC from last May which was closed as "no consensus", with the Talk page consensus (regular Talk page agreement between multiple editors) from last December. You appear to be also midreading that fact that ScottishFinhish closed that RfC as 'no consensus', and not to favor one side as prevailing over the other side of the RfC from last May. I've asked for ScottishFinnish to clarify this on the Trump Talk page at this time. ErnestKrause (talk) 22:08, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

Apparently EK believes that I flip-flopped a position in the middle of a discussion. Even if that were true, editors are allowed to change positions in the middle of a discussion; it's called "having an open mind". But EK takes that a step further and accuses me of bad faith motives for the nonexistent flip-flop. That's about all I understand about this. I'd love it if this went to ANI, where a well-deserved boomerang sanction would be possible. ―Mandruss ☎ 2¢. IMO. 18:32, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

So, from what I see there was a rough consensus that it should be trimmed down, but no consensus on what to do to trim it down. On an obviously contentious article like Donald Trump it's pretty likely that any large trims are going to be challenged and there will need to be consensus for any specific large trim, removal, or rearrangement. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:35, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

The back and forth edits by Mandruss is his own preference; the difficulty continues with his misrepresenting that he has been going back and forth, which seems to be his way of trying to force his current disposition into the article by getting other editors to believe his miscasting of the meaning of your "no consensus" close to the RfC from last May. Mandruss appears to be claiming that your RfC was decisively made against the editors who represented, in your words, "Roughly half of the respondents support the conciseness and structure of the proposal". That's not the meaning of "no consensus", and I've asked if you could try to clarify what you meant by the wording of your RfC close. Could you restate the outcome of your own close from the RfC from last May in the current Trump Talk page discussion so that it is not misquoted by Mandruss and other editors in that current Talk page discussion. ErnestKrause (talk) 22:08, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

Hey, sorry to bother you. I just submitted a report on the AIV but the format is really messed up. Should I delete it and resubmit it? I used Twinkle to assist me in it but I am 99% sure I did it wrong (lol)

Thanks, AirmanKitten203 (talk) 17:44, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

It was close enough. I had already blocked them. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:45, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

Alright, thank you! Have a good one! AirmanKitten203 (talk) 17:46, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

No worries, glad to help! ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:47, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

I wouldn't be surprised if ~2026-18336-0 (talk · contribs) is one as well.   –Skywatcher68 (talk) 15:46, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

It's pretty unlikely that they're still using that TA. I've protected the article for a month, which probably won't be enough, but it's a start. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:48, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

I think I found another registered editor; SPI has been created.   –Skywatcher68 (talk) 15:54, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

I see you responded there but put the wrong FactChecker. 2FactChecker (talk · contribs) is the blocked one. :)   –Skywatcher68 (talk) 16:27, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

Thanks. Copy/paste error. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:37, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

Sure thing. By the way, the true master apparently is Alakmarsaify (talk · contribs).   –Skywatcher68 (talk) 21:01, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

Hi! Out of curiosity: was Velirand's supposed sockpuppet activity actually confirmed by a CheckUser search? He is one of the most active and longest running contributors on the Estonian Wikipedia. I find it somewhat strange to assume he's a sockpuppet of a much less known user. - Neptuunium (talk) 10:06, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

There was significant checkuser data linking them. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:15, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

Quick facts

story · music · places

Close

happy new year! - inviting you to check out "my" story (fun listen today, full of surprises), music (and memory), and places (pictured by me: the latest uploads) any day! -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:39, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

Bro--if I didn't have the job and the education I have, I wouldn't be able to make ANY sense at all of Wikipedia:Citing sources. But I have the job, and the education--and I still can't follow half of it. I cannot in good conscience send an inexperienced editor that way. I'm sure we have some buttons they can push in the visual editor or whatever, but that skips the step of actually learning what is happening and why that needs to happen. This frustrates me. Can we not write up a simple manual, that explains the basics in normal English? Anyway, I'm about to impose the sfn (Harvard) templates on the article, but I'm really only assisting here: is this something you want? I'm using it for Big Things (GA, FA) because my mentor did. Let me know. And also, I'm not doing that to steal your thunder: you can have all the credit and I'll be happy to bow out if you want this to be your labor of love, I totally respect that. It's just nice to work on something real that someone cares about. Drmies (talk) 15:53, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

• And do you know what's wrong with the opening words of Template:Harvard citation documentation? Drmies (talk) 15:54, 12 January 2026 (UTC)
  • You're not mean to view Template:Harvard citation documentation directly. It's the documentation for the Harv family of templates. The weirdness you're seeing at the top is code that copies the name of the template the documentation appear on. So on Harvard citation no brackets it says {{harvnb}} is designed to be used to create", while on Template:Sfn the same text reads {{sfn}} is designed to be used to create.
    Template:Harvard citation documentation exists so you don't have to write the same things over and over again on each template. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:42, 12 January 2026 (UTC)
    • When I read the first sentence of this I was expecting it to turn into a joke about how you're not meant to read that documentation the same way you're not supposed to read the Latin. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:44, 12 January 2026 (UTC)
      • Reading, or worse editing, backend template documentation can turn you into a gnome. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:46, 12 January 2026 (UTC)
        • I got there by way of a link on the Citing sources page; how else am I going to learn to use the template... Now imagine I'm even dumber (or more inexperienced with technicalities) than I am--this is not easy. I've often had to point beginning editors to a page that helps them do citations, and Citing sources is not a good one. Drmies (talk) 16:54, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

          Help:Footnotes is for references in general, and Help:Shortened footnotes covers short refs. Although realistically none of the documentation for anything is very good, something everyone knows but noone likes writing documentation. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 17:01, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

• I don't know when I'll actually have time to do real work on that article, but normally the citation style I use is whatever seems easiest then when I'm done I ping ActivelyDisinterested to make sure my cites are acceptable. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:58, 12 January 2026 (UTC)
  • So you're good with my screwing around? I know you sent thank-spam but maybe you were just being polite cause I'm such a yuge power player! ;) Drmies (talk) 16:04, 12 January 2026 (UTC)
    • Feel free to screw around. I try not to be too invested in the articles I'm actually interested in, and I never could bring myself to truly care about which cite style was used, or what color the border and background of an infobox is. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:15, 12 January 2026 (UTC)
  • There's nothing currently wrong with the referencing on that article. The referencing style that an article uses generally shouldn't be changed (per WP:CITEVAR), but editors can agree to do so on the articles talk page. It's work I've carried out a few times. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:45, 12 January 2026 (UTC)
    • A variety of citation styles were already used, correlated with the mish-mash of single-use editors. I forgot "p="; that was not an option I chose, but thank you for correcting it. Drmies (talk) 16:51, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

      No worries. I've done the work of converting pages before, it's easy to make slips. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:57, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

Hey! I have passed 500 substantive edits total, and I just wanted to check in about my extended confirmed status.

I made a request to have my status restored. They mentioned that generally one has to wait another 30 days and 500 edits after revocation unless one can work something out with the admin who revoked it, so I wanted to reach out to see if you would be willing to work something out.

I understand your decision to revoke my status after my use of wikilinks to get over the hump needed for extended-confirmed status. Since then, I have put in hundreds of more substantive edits. For what its worth, very little of my contributions have been reverted or disputed. Though I have on a few occasions participated in an extended discussion of disagreement with an editor, I have tried to remain civil and restrained in explaining the nature of my disagreement.

Though editing ARBPIA pages was certainly a major draw for me to get extended-confirmed status by the end of 2025 (I created my account in February), which would suggest bad faith on my part, I think my status should be restored given how relatively uncontroversial my contributions have been. Setting aside my contested positions in talk pages, which I didn't act on, my edits have been widely accepted. I have only been dinged for wading into pages that I didn't have permission to edit. Restoring my status would allow me to continue contributing without violating policy. I have other interests as well, including the history of Judaism and the U.S. Supreme Court, that potentially overlap with contentious topics. Currently, I'm wary of editing pages in those areas for fear of violating policy.

I would understand if you would prefer for me to make another 500 edits and leave my restoration up to another admin, but I thought I would ask: Would it be possible to have my status restored? Dauntbares (talk) 14:38, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

Dauntbares, this tool, in development, is intended to provide a bit of visibility into these kinds of issues. Sean.hoyland (talk) 17:26, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for sharing this! I guess I'm not really sure how to interpret these graphs. There's a lot going on. Dauntbares (talk) 17:48, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

Oh, I see the notes section below the graphs, which was helpful.

I'm not really disputing that my activity prior to the revocation fit the fact pattern of EC gaming. I was just wondering if we could clarify the bar needed for restoration as another admin suggested I could check in with the admin who revoked my status. Dauntbares (talk) 17:55, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

If you look at the 'Static URLs (available for 30 days)' there is now a link to a sortable Revisions (color-coded table). That might help with the 'substantive edits' question. Also, to clarify, red in the Size Change column only means <= 100 bytes, an arbitrary 'small' number. There is no mapping from revision size to the notion of 'substantive'. Sean.hoyland (talk) 02:46, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Nick Shirley on a "Politics, government, and law" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

(replacing Yapperbot) SodiumBot (botop|talk) 02:30, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

Read the article with you in it. Long but interesting. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:16, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

Wasn't expecting to read your username when I opened the magazine, that's for sure. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:01, 17 January 2026 (UTC)

I certainly wasn't expecting a mini-profile. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:58, 18 January 2026 (UTC)

WP:GNG is getting closer... Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:06, 18 January 2026 (UTC)

No, thank you. Tomats got mentioned though. Couple more times and we can have an article on a word I invented. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:27, 18 January 2026 (UTC)

You could probably add it on Wiktionary. After you finish writing the ANI-report on the horrible threat I just made, of course. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:42, 18 January 2026 (UTC)

I've just been made aware of this discussion, think I've done the right thing by reverting for block evasion, think a block is almost 100% necessary. Cheers, Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 20:26, 17 January 2026 (UTC)

Looks like they're already blocked. Thanks for the heads up. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:00, 18 January 2026 (UTC)

Should we revdel the names of non-notable underage students at a high school? re: this... - Adolphus79 (talk) 18:57, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

Yes, thanks for the heads up. It's sorted. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:01, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Syria on a "Politics, government, and law" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

(replacing Yapperbot) SodiumBot (botop|talk) 02:30, 18 January 2026 (UTC)

Is it perhaps time for some more serious action? He's giving no gap between creating socks and there's a large amount of edits per-sock to revert before he's caught, I still see live edits of his socks floating around every now and then, and it's usually focused on his OR. He seems to be using Commons as a staging ground. ~2026-79345-7 (talk) 10:19, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

You seem to have a mistake in your Iskandar diff analysis. You say that this edit of Iskandar "leaves non-English map without any sourcing that does not contain Israel or Judah. Article mentions Israel, Judah, and Ammon which are not in the map left in the article." But they didn't leave a map so this seems like you may be thinking of another edit they made. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 23:33, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

There is a different map remaining further down. What is missing from this argument, which nobody seems to care about, is that there was a perfectly valid reason for removing the infobox map. Namely, it is historically false and not based on any known source. Arminden's explanation is here and a longer discussion is here. Iskandar's edit improved the article without a doubt, and he is not responsible for what another map that another editor added to the page shows or doesn't shows. Zero^talk 01:02, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

Oh I see what you mean, they left the other map as in they didn't remove it. Thanks, IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 01:06, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

It should also be noted that the other map is a map of Neo-Hittite states and doesn't extend far enough south to include Judea or Edom. Israel, Judea and Edom were not Neo-Hittite states. It doesn't show what is to the north or east either; why should it? Anyway, that is a perfectly ordinary content discussion that belongs on the article talk page with no obligation of Iskandar to contribute. Zero^talk 01:38, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

Oh good to know. Thank you Zero. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 01:48, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Sanctioned Suicide on a "Society, sports, and culture" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

(replacing Yapperbot) SodiumBot (botop|talk) 23:39, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

I just noticed a copy/paste copyvio here (copied from the source included in the edit), if we could get a quick revdel, please? - Adolphus79 (talk) 12:58, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

I did not realize you were away, this has been handled. - Adolphus79 (talk) 19:17, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

Your feedback is requested at Talk:List of video games listed among the best on a "Media, the arts, and architecture" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

(replacing Yapperbot) SodiumBot (botop|talk|contribs) 20:30, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

Your feedback is requested at Talk:List of suicides on a "Biographies" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

(replacing Yapperbot) SodiumBot (botop|talk|contribs) 12:31, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Operation Wheeler/Wallowa on a "History and geography" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

(replacing Yapperbot) SodiumBot (botop|talk|contribs) 16:30, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

Haven't seen you around as much as usual recently, hope you are just busy on the farm. - Adolphus79 (talk) 02:09, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

just came here to say the same. Hope all is well albeit snowy. Star Mississippi 18:58, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

• Thanks for all your hard work as usual. Andre🚐 04:25, 26 February 2026 (UTC)
• I'm doing well, just incredibly busy. My dogs both needed some vet treatment, work was (and continues to be) bonkers, I had six weeks of severely below freezing temperatures, and nearly five feet of snow, so my farm chore burden increased significantly as well. So yeah, just busy, nothing terribly amiss. On the plus side, spring is just around the corner and things should (hopefully) be settled at work so I should be back to my regular amount of too much to do soon. Thanks for reaching out. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:00, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

  this weather is just insane. Glad you're physically safe and hope dogs are OK too Star Mississippi 15:58, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Sfenj on a "Society, sports, and culture" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

(replacing Yapperbot) SodiumBot (botop|talk|contribs) 21:30, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

Your feedback is requested at Talk:History of the Jews in Algeria on a "Religion and philosophy" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

(replacing Yapperbot) SodiumBot (botop|talk|contribs) 03:30, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Ashkenazi Jews on a "History and geography" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

(replacing Yapperbot) SodiumBot (botop|talk|contribs) 12:31, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Lisa del Giocondo on a "Biographies" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

(replacing Yapperbot) SodiumBot (botop|talk|contribs) 01:30, 18 March 2026 (UTC)