User talk:Vegantics

Hello, Vegantics, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like this place and decide to stay.

Please sign your name on talk pages, by using four tildes (~~~~). This will automatically produce your username and the date, and helps to identify who said what and when. Please do not sign any edit that is not on a talk page.
Check out some of these pages:
- Contributing to Wikipedia
- Introduction to Wikipedia
- How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
- The five pillars of Wikipedia | Cheatsheet of WikiCode

If you have a question that is not one of the frequently asked questions below, check out the Teahouse, ask me on my talk page, or click the button below. Happy editing and again, welcome! Rasnaboy (talk) 17:58, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why can't I edit some particular pages?

Some pages that have been vandalized repeatedly are semi-protected, meaning that editing by new or unregistered users is prohibited through technical measures. If you have an account that is four days old and has made at least 10 edits, then you can bypass semi-protection and edit any semi-protected page. Some pages, such as highly visible templates, are fully-protected, meaning that only administrators can edit them. If this is not the case, you may have been blocked or your IP address caught up in a range block.

Where can I experiment with editing Wikipedia?

Use the main sandbox or create your own personal sandbox to experiment.

How do I create an article?

See how to create your first article, then use the Article Wizard to create one, and add references to the article as explained below.

How do I create citations?

Do a search on Google or your preferred search engine for the subject of the Wikipedia article that you want to create a citation for.
Find a website that supports the claim you are trying to find a citation for.
In a new tab/window, go to the citation generator, click on the 'An arbitrary website' bubble, and fill out as many fields as you can about the website you just found.
Click the 'Get reference wiki text' button.
Highlight, and then copy (Ctrl+C or Apple+C), the resulting text (it will be something like <ref> {{cite web | .... }}</ref>, copy the whole thing).
In the Wikipedia article, after the claim you found a citation for, paste (Ctrl+V or Apple+V) the text you copied.
If the article does not have a References or Notes section (or the like), add this to the bottom of the page, but above the External Links section and the categories:

==References==
{{Reflist}}

What is a WikiProject, and how do I join one?

A WikiProject is a group of editors that are interested in improving the coverage of certain topics on Wikipedia. (See this page for a complete list of WikiProjects.) If you would like to help, add your username to the list that is on the bottom of the WikiProject page.

March 2023

Hello, I'm SkyWolf369. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Eggslut 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. Thanks. SkyTheWolf (Talk) 16:59, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello SkyWolf369,

My edits to Eggslut were to bring it more into line with Wikipedia's formatting for other restaurants, such as the featured Sci-Fi Dine-In Theater Restaurant by eliminating the Name section and grouping that information with the more relevant sections. This also had the added benefit of re-naming Accolades to Reception, which is more in line with an encyclopedic tone. I would argue that these edits are constructive, but would appreciate additional perspective on what I could have done that would have met that criteria.

Vegantics (talk) 17:18, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Vegantics Sorry it didnt show up the fact that you moved the information from the section and all I saw was the blanking of the section so I believed it was vandalism. SkyTheWolf (Talk) 17:27, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@SkyWolf369 All good, thank you for clarifying for me! Vegantics (talk) 17:31, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Strzok merge proposal

I see you added a notice of merge proposal, at the top of the Peter Strzok article. But I am not finding any talk page discussion about it when I click on the “discuss” link. Are you planning to start a discussion about it? I think that’s the normal procedure. Anythingyouwant (talk) 08:37, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Anythingyouwant,

I didn't propose the merger from Compromised (book), I just wanted to raise awareness of it on the Peter Strzok article. Typically the discussion would go on the page being merged to, but 107.127.46.30 used a template that points back to the Compromised page. I have no opinion on the merger so I opted not to create a talk page because I don't have a stance and I don't know where those who wish to discuss it would prefer to do so. I would encourage you to create the discussion if you would like to weigh in.

Vegantics (talk) 13:32, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply, Vegantics. I’m not sure what the best course is, but will think about it. Cheers. Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:00, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

January 2024

Please refrain from making constructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to constitute helping to build the encyclopedia and have been kept. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. Repeated constructive editing may result in Wikilove. Thank you. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 08:44, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just kidding. Thank you so much for tagging articles that are lacking sources. The {{more citations needed}} tag sorted them to Category:Articles lacking sources from January 2024 which is a backlog I'm currently trying to deal with by citing sources. If you're interested, you can find me and others at Wikipedia:WikiProject Unreferenced articles. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 08:47, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Museums & primary sources

Hi! I just wanted to flag and further expand on why I reverted your edits to the R. H. Quaytman article. Totally agree with many of your edits and some of the restructuring you did, but there were so many primary source citation notes that it was easier to just revert.

While you are correct that primary sources are generally to be avoided on Wikipedia, the case of museums and visual art is slightly different and varies based on the context in which the sources are being used. Editors should not use citations to museum website (exhibition listings, etc.) to establish notability or to source truly subjective details presented as fact - e.g., an exhibition listing for a show at the Met that claims "Manet was the most important painter of his time" cannot be used to establish that as fact, and should be presented in an article as the opinion of the curators or museum, if included at all. But because museums are the primary research institutions for the study and exhibition of both historical and contemporary art, they can be used as sources for basic factual information about artists and art movements - e.g., an exhibition listing for an Ed Ruscha show at MoMA can be used to establish the fact that the exhibition happened, and basic factual details in the exhibition listing can also be sourced directly from that listing, including the art that was displayed, the artist's methods or elements of their process, and other biographical information about the artist.

There are always going to cases where this is difficult or gets tricky, in particular when it comes to museums run or owned by individuals or private, single-owner foundations (like Glenstone, the Rubell Museum, or the Long Museum). These sources, unlike traditional museums which generally do not deaccession art, often have a direct financial interest in the scholarship and exhibition of the art they present as they may sell it later on, so they generally should not be considered as sources for more detailed information about an artist. And obviously commercial galleries in general should be avoided for the same reason.

I just wanted to flag this as it seems that you've added "secondary source needed" to many instances of facts that were sourced from museum websites. While a secondary source is certainly helpful in these cases, it is not strictly necessary unless the sourced information is actually the subjective analysis or opinion of the curators/museum presented as fact, or if the museum is a private institution that has market-based incentives to embellish or mis-represent information about an artist.

Happy to dive in deeper if you want, and I appreciate your time! 19h00s (talk) 18:49, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also -- and apologies for over-loading you with feedback here -- I just wanted to flag a helpful approach for articles about artists when you're copy editing or removing content. Again, you're totally correct to point to MOS VisArts/Exhibitions when deleting mass exhibition lists in artist bios, especially when they're completely unsourced. But it's often helpful to move the removed information onto the talk page instead of just deleting it outright - while unhelpful for the average user, this info is super useful for editors who want to expand the article later on, as it points them toward exhibitions and institutions that might have information about the artist's life, career, and stylistic evolution (catalogue essays for exhibitions, usually written by curators and art historians, are among the most important sources for information on artists, as these are usually the most detailed pieces of writing with the most access to the subject). The approach I generally take is to move anything that's completely unsourced to the talk page (long lists of exhibitions in particular), and whittle down long lists of cited exhibitions to a handful of the most notable solo exhibitions an artist staged during their lifetime or so far (no more than 5, usually). But major edits like these often spur other interested editors to revisit the article and expand it with better citations, and keeping the unsourced exhibitions lists on the talk page, even if only temporarily, can create a great jumping-off point for those other editors. Thanks again! 19h00s (talk) 22:31, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @19h00s, thanks for the conversation and explaining your rationale behind the revert. My issue with extensive use of primary sources is not that it's trying to justify notability or self-promote, but because can become original research. When an article relies so heavily on primary sources, some of which were self-published by Quaytman, it starts to tip the balance of what has actually been reported on them versus an original biography. I think you are right that the primary resource flag was not the right fit-- a more appropriate flag would highlight WP:NOR.

I also appreciate the suggestion regarding moving the list of exhibitions to the talk page-- I'll do so in the future.

Vegantics (talk) 15:02, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That makes total sense, and the NOR tag feels like a great approach in that case. Appreciate your time, and happy editing! 19h00s (talk) 15:25, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Fictional Sudanese people

A tag has been placed on Category:Fictional Sudanese people indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:27, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz, no objections here, thanks for helping keep Wikipedia organized!

Vegantics (talk) 16:52, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy ping - sock accusation

See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jedediah78, an account you've been involved with. Thanks. 10mmsocket (talk) 15:44, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Steve Bannatyne has been accepted

Steve Bannatyne, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as C-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. This is a great rating for a new article, and places it among the top 22% of accepted submissions — kudos to you! You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Ibjaja055 (talk) 22:33, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Draft Review - Musaad Al-Harthi

Dear Vegantics,

I hope you are doing well. I wanted to follow up on the draft for the Musaad Al-Harthi article. I have made the necessary revisions based on the feedback I received, and I believe the article is now ready for review and publication.

Could you please review the updated draft when you have the opportunity? I appreciate your time and assistance with this process.

Thank you so much! علي بدر العتيبي (talk) 02:08, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @علي بدر العتيبي, thank you for reaching out. I’m not an Articles for Creation reviewer and would encourage you to use WP:AFCREVIEW to have an experienced editor review your article. That being said I’m happy to do a review and provide feedback before you submit. Just let me know and I can get to it on Monday. Good luck with your edits! Vegantics (talk) 02:52, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Unreferenced articles June 2025 backlog drive

WikiProject Unreferenced articles | June 2025 Backlog Drive

There is a substantial backlog of unsourced articles on Wikipedia, and we need your help! The purpose of this drive is to add sources to these unsourced articles and make a meaningful impact.

Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles cited.
Remember to tag your edit summary with #JUN25, both to advertise the event and tally the points later using Hashtag Summary Search.
Interested in taking part? Sign up here.

You're receiving this message because you have subscribed to the mailing list. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:15, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Spledia

Due to their obvious lack of editorial oversight, Spledia (talk · contribs) seems to be operating what, in effect, is an unregistered bot account. I've referred them to the bot approval process. In the meantime, I've blocked them from editing article content until they can get approval. Thanks for giving me a heads up on this! — The Anome (talk) 05:45, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Notability

Can you give some guidance on notability for Yunnan Gold? I would think the state mining company operating a large gold mine and copper mine would be obviously notable compared to the other articles on companies. Underminer1000 (talk) 15:58, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Underminer1000, thanks for reaching out. It is possible the Yunnan Gold meets the minimum requirements for notability, but at present that has not been demonstrated. I would encourage you to read Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) and WP:SIGCOV to understand why the article does not currently appear to meet notability guidelines. Good luck in your editing! Vegantics (talk) 16:03, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I see a lot of Australian mining company articles with one main property so I figured a large mine or project was the notability standard for mining articles. Can you be more specific about why Yunnan Gold in your opinion has not yet demonstrated notability compared to other mining articles on Wikipedia? Underminer1000 (talk) 18:06, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Underminer1000, Did you read Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)? The article does not currently show "significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." You have three sources: one is a WP:PRIMARY source that provides almost no information about Yunnan except that they have worked with Siemens; one is a seven-sentence overview from a source considered unreliable (see WP:CHINADAILY); one is a WP:PRIMARY press release about the company that contains relevant information but needs to be backed up with quality sources primarily about Yunnan.

I also would not recommend using other mining articles as a reference for notability/quality. Wikipedia is a community effort and it's completely possible that those articles are trash. (I wouldn't know as I haven't read or evaluated them to make a comparison.)

Vegantics (talk) 18:15, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Roads

Hey, thanks for merging +10 roads to A roads in Zone 5 of the Great Britain numbering scheme. Could you do the same with all the roads from other zones who are unreferenced and fail WP:GEOROAD? Kind regards. Luis7M (talk) 10:29, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Luis7M, thanks for reminding me of this project, it's a good effort and I'll merge more articles when I have time. I would also encourage you to WP:BEBOLD and do the merges yourself-- if you look at my edits to A1098 road, A roads in Zone 1 of the Great Britain numbering scheme, and the corresponding talk page you can see what steps I have taken and what edit summaries I used.

Alternatively if you want to support this effort without doing merges yourself, I use this website to identify which articles are unreferenced rather than checking each article. As a result, I won't see any articles that do not have the unreferenced article template. If you want to go through and add the template as needed, it will ensure that nothing is overlooked. Cheers! Vegantics (talk) 14:06, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A bowl of strawberries for you!

Thank you for cleaning up Moshe Reuven. COI clean up can be a real time sink! I'm guessing you saw that both editors have been blocked. Netherzone (talk) 20:39, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the drive!

Welcome, welcome, welcome Vegantics! I'm glad that you are joining the June 2025 drive! Please, have a cup of WikiTea, and go cite some articles.

Fix a random page lacking sources

Cielquiparle (talk) 03:55, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Response regarding Conflict of Interest message

Hello Vegantics,

Thank you for your message. I would like to clarify that I am not receiving any payment or compensation for my edits regarding the Open University of Sudan. My contributions are purely voluntary and aimed at improving the accuracy and neutrality of the information.

Please let me know if you need any further clarification.

Best regards, Shakirex

--Shakirex (talk) 15:53, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Shakirex, Thank you for clarifying. Your use of promotional language such as "OUS offers academic programs designed to support individual development and meet the educational needs of Sudanese society" and "OUS is widely recognized for its innovative use of educational technology" and reliance on primary sources is what made me believe you have a personal connection. The article's overall tone appears to be promoting the Open University of Sudan in a way that does not align with Wikipedia standards of WP:TONE. Vegantics (talk) 16:01, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you @Vegantics for your kind response. I now understand that the wording I used came across as promotional, even though that was never my intention. I simply relied on the official website of the university and thought it was important to use its exact statements to ensure accuracy. I truly appreciate your feedback and would be very happy if you or other experienced editors could help by adjusting the article to better match Wikipedia’s tone and standards.

To be honest, there is very limited information available about the university outside its official website, which made it difficult to find independent secondary sources. I’m learning from this and will be more careful going forward.

Thanks again for your support and for helping me understand the proper approach.

--Shakirex (talk) 16:16, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Truthfully if there is limited information about the university outside of their official website, it may not meet the criteria for a Wikipedia article. Wikipedia is not intended to be a catalog of all information out there, and you may want to read WP:NSCHOOL (which is part of Wikipedia:Notability to understand the criteria. Good luck. Vegantics (talk) 16:18, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Vegantics,

Thank you very much for your guidance and for sharing the link to WP:NSCHOOL. I understand the importance of notability and the need for reliable, independent sources on Wikipedia.

I will look for such sources about the Open University of Sudan to improve the article accordingly.

I appreciate your help and the time you took to explain these policies.

Best regards,

Shakirex

--Shakirex (talk) 16:30, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

response regarding conflict of Interest message

Hello Vegantics,

I hope you're doing well.

I'm writing to follow up regarding the edit I made, for which I noticed I'm not receiving any payment as I mentioned on my talk page. I’ve reviewed the edit and tried understand which parts may have come across as promotional and broken the wikipedia guidelines. I’ve revised the content to make it more neutral and objective.

It would be really helpful to know if the updated version now aligns with Wikipedia’s guidelines. I sincerely apologize for the initial mistake, which was due to my inexperience being my first edit. If you have any further feedback or suggestion, I’d truly appreciate it your input will help me contribute more effectively and operate appropriately in the future.

Thank you again for your time and guidance.

Best regards Giacomo.tarabelli (talk) 08:41, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Giacomo.tarabelli, thank you for reaching out. I reviewed your edits and I think they look good. Especially as a newer editor, your edits for one specific company can appear very suspicious and I appreciate your diligence to review your content. I have removed the WP:PROMO and WP:UPE templates. Vegantics (talk) 14:57, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Shriya Boppana

Hi @Vegantics, I have attempted to clean up the Shriya Boppana article in reference to your COI. I understand your concerns with items in the Advocacy section being WP:PRIMARY sources, suggesting a lack of WP:SIGCOV. Would you mind checking the changes I have made so far? I believe that my excessive editing is tagging me as "possible BLP issue or vandalism" so I want to refrain from further editing. Thank you Sugaardaddy (talk) 00:40, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Sugaardaddy, Thank you for pinging me. You've made good improvements to this article-- I see that all statements are now cited. The article still has some WP:PRIMARY issues (the references from Instagram and cmu are both examples of this). I would encourage you to look for reliable, WP:SECONDARY sources that provide coverage of Boppana and consider trimming information where there are not better resources-- if something was not notable to receive news coverage, it often isn't notable enough for Wikipedia (Boppana's TED X talk is an example of this).

As for your edits being flagged as a possible BLP issue, I wouldn't worry about that. If another editor suspects that you are being a vandal, they can look at the content of your edits and have a conversation with you.

Given that you've denied being a COI editor, I'm going to remove the COI template but add a WP:PRIMARY since by my estimate 29 of the 43 sources are primary. I also did some cleanup to remove sponsored content. Vegantics (talk) 14:30, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Vegantics, thank you for the update. I have a question regarding the source that you tagged as sponsored content. I have emailed the news station's editors desk to inquire about the source as it seemed to be non-sponsored by the subject and have received confirmation that the series on the channel 'Future Leaders of America' was sponsored by McDonalds for production but not by the subjects in each video. All subjects were locally sourced by the reporters themselves and vetted via documentation of degrees, grades, and employment. Would that still count as sponsored material? Sugaardaddy (talk) 19:14, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Sugaardaddy, given that Boppana did not sponsor the article herself I think it is reasonable to restore it. That being said, the article is still a sponsored piece that lacks depth. I would consider it a mid-quality source that would be good to replace if better sources are available. Vegantics (talk) 19:22, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Additional citations for verification added

Hello Vegantics,

Thank you for your editorial work and for adding the {{more citations needed}} tag to the Open University of Sudan article. I appreciate your efforts in maintaining Wikipedia’s quality and referencing standards.

Following your note, I’ve gone ahead and added a new set of citations from reliable and independent sources to strengthen the article and support the key statements. If you have time, I’d be grateful if you could review the recent changes and let me know if they sufficiently address the issue or whether further improvement is still needed.

Thanks again for your time and support.

Best regards, --Shakirex (talk) 19:28, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Shakirex, thank you for reaching out. I've reviewed the article and would say that it is overall looking better. Three things I would recommend for future improvements:

MOS:PARA recommends against single-sentence paragraphs. You have several single-sentence paragraphs in a row that are all being referenced to one citation at the end (for example, in Graduation ceremony and peace pledge (February 2015)). It may be better to tighten these up into a single paragraph.
Similarly, MOS:OVERSECTION recommends against very short sections such as Technology & OER and Exams in 2025. These should be grouped into larger sections
Your table of rankings includes several metrics where there is no available data. Per WP:NOTEVERYTHING, you would be better off removing the table and instead having a sentence or two about the rankings

I'm also going to individually tag some sections that still need citations. Good luck in your future editing. Vegantics (talk) 20:23, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Vegantics,

Thank you for your detailed and thoughtful feedback. I appreciate your careful review and will address the points you raised to enhance the article accordingly. It is a valuable opportunity to improve through your guidance.

Best regards,

--Shakirex (talk) 20:53, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again @Vegantics,

Just wanted to follow up and let you know that I’ve now carefully implemented all of your suggestions on the Open University of Sudan article:

Merged single-sentence paragraphs (especially under Graduation ceremony and peace pledge) into coherent blocks.
Merged the former "Technology & OER" section into "Teaching and learning", to improve structure and avoid overly short sections.
Combined the previous "Examinations" and "Centers and Campuses" sections into a unified section titled "Examinations and Campuses", to streamline related content and enhance readability.
Removed the table of rankings, replacing it with a short, referenced paragraph summarizing the most relevant ranking data (Webometrics January 2025).
Addressed all “citation needed” tags — all previously unreferenced claims (approximately four sentences) are now backed by reliable and independent sources.

The article has remained stable for over 72 hours now without further edits, and I’ve reviewed all citations for consistency and accuracy.

If you have time, I’d really appreciate it if you could take another look at the page:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_University_of_Sudan

If everything looks good to you, I’d be very grateful if you would consider removing the remaining {{citation needed}} tags.

Thanks again for your help and thoughtful guidance it’s been a valuable learning experience.

Best regards,

— Shakirex (talk) 14:37, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Shakirex, You've done a great job of making improvements; I commend you on your work. I went through and removed the citation needed tags as well as doing some miscellaneous cleanup. For instance, multiple consecutive sentences in the same paragraph with the same reference do not need individual citations (although this is a somewhat subjective determination, your approach wasn't necessarily wrong). I think you have demonstrated a clear understanding of how to respond to the concerns that these templates are addressing and would empower you to remove them yourself in the future-- if the editor who added the template disagrees that you met the requirements, they can always re-add them and start a talk page discussion. Happy editing! Vegantics (talk) 14:50, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Vegantics,

Thank you for your message and for taking the time to review the article and provide detailed feedback.

I appreciate the opportunity to learn from your comments and observations. It has helped me better understand Wikipedia’s standards, especially regarding sourcing, structure, and citation practices.

Contributing to article improvement with guidance from experienced editors like yourself has been a valuable learning experience. Thank you again for your time and thoughtful remarks.

Best regards,

— Shakirex (talk) 15:08, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]