User talk:Sasquatch

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by A.A Prinon (talk | contribs) at 12:17, 11 July 2021 (→‎Lugnuts: balancing). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Archives: α β γ δ ε ζ η θ ι κ

Destroyer 27

Dear Sasquatch,

Since I am a new user I know very little about how Wikipedia works. I also don't know if it was proper to respond on the noticeboard page. Since I was named and thereby had received a notification, I thought I must present my side. If I mustn't, in such cases, I henceforth won't.

Best,

Destroyer27 (talk) 6:12, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

She’ll probably block you for a year for typing a letter Tigerslayer2699753 (talk) 20:22, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Birthday, Sasquatch! ♥

ArbCom 2019 special circular

Icon of a white exclamation mark within a black triangle
 Administrators must secure their accounts

The Arbitration Committee may require a new RfA if your account is compromised.

View additional information

This message was sent to all administrators following a recent motion. Thank you for your attention. For the Arbitration Committee, Cameron11598 02:28, 4 May 2019 (UTC) Template:Z152[reply]

Administrator account security (Correction to Arbcom 2019 special circular)

ArbCom would like to apologise and correct our previous mass message in light of the response from the community.

Since November 2018, six administrator accounts have been compromised and temporarily desysopped. In an effort to help improve account security, our intention was to remind administrators of existing policies on account security — that they are required to "have strong passwords and follow appropriate personal security practices." We have updated our procedures to ensure that we enforce these policies more strictly in the future. The policies themselves have not changed. In particular, two-factor authentication remains an optional means of adding extra security to your account. The choice not to enable 2FA will not be considered when deciding to restore sysop privileges to administrator accounts that were compromised.

We are sorry for the wording of our previous message, which did not accurately convey this, and deeply regret the tone in which it was delivered.

For the Arbitration Committee, -Cameron11598 21:04, 4 May 2019 (UTC) Template:Z83[reply]

Thanks

Thank you for this. I just felt there were too many red flags. best wishes 82.39.96.55 (talk) 22:46, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Honeypot

Thanks for cleaning up the mess here but it's probably worth leaving it unprotected as a honeypot ;) Praxidicae (talk) 21:08, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Praxidicae: I was actually considering that as well. I think I'm just going to temporarily SALT it to slow down the craziness for today and then we can re-evaluate if things returns. Sasquatch t|c 21:11, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think the next step is a filter. I'll work on that one. Thanks! Praxidicae (talk) 21:17, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Admin's Barnstar
I really want to thank you for blocking user:Vivekshukla21. This user has been messing up Wikipedia for months. CLCStudent (talk) 20:42, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@CLCStudent: I really don't understand the argument of how naming India's first prime minister is a "political issue" despite it already being in the page. Absolutely unbelievable amount of WP:OWN and edit warring. I also want to thank you for all your efforts in reverting and listing vandalism. Cheers. Sasquatch t|c 20:46, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It was definitely my pleasure! CLCStudent (talk) 20:54, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:49.150.112.179

Hi,

I don't think the edits made to User Talk:49.150.112.179 is patent nonsense. The user was clearly trying to create an article.

Whether or not the article was any good, probably not, but I think it would have been better to not delete it outright. Rockstonetalk to me! 02:44, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Rockstone35: I don't think Adam Levine, Bree Olsen, Renee Zellweger and John Newman ever participated in MegaMan related content called "Don't let Israelites GO!" or "Drill it deep, deeper, DEEPEST!". Cheers. Sasquatch t|c 02:47, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
LOL, you're right. I only looked at the page briefly and thought it looked like someone trying to make an article. I should have looked closer, sorry. Sounds like a a candidate for Wikipedia:Still_more_Best_of_BJAODN. Rockstonetalk to me! 02:53, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Rockstone35: Hahaha, it may very well be. I can copy it to your sandbox if you wish to preserve it for the archives. Sasquatch t|c 02:57, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Haha, go ahead! I would appreciate it! Thank you! Rockstonetalk to me! 02:59, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Rockstone35: Done. Sasquatch t|c 03:01, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you!Rockstonetalk to me! 03:06, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Original Barnstar
thanks for your feedback on my name.

i have requested a name change. Vseospecialist (talk) 02:25, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Range block

At User talk:1.144.108.193, in answer to a query of mine about whether a block was too long, you said "In retrospect, I agree the block should have been made shorter. I will unblock the range." Perhaps ironically, reading your message there made it seem rather more likely that the length of the block was not too long, and might even be considered too short, because having seen the edits from the other IP range that you linked to I could see that a disruptive editor had been active for close to a month. JamesBWatson (talk) 16:49, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Joining this section, per my request at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1012#Request_IP_range_lock_due_to_abuse_on_day_of_the_year_pages this vandal is back again at July 3 and July 9 with the exact same problem as last time. Redalert2fan (talk) 17:51, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@JamesBWatson: @Redalert2fan: Yeah, I was hoping the IP vandal had just jumped to another range, but these are the kinds of things you just have to wait and see for. I've always been a firm believer that unblocks are cheap and we can just re-assess later as behavior comes up. I'll try to look into it later today if no other admin has already. Sasquatch t|c 18:39, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Redalert2fan: and Sasquatch: When I wrote above "I could see that a disruptive editor had been active for close to a month", I considered adding something like "...and I wouldn't be surprised if it's been going on much longer than that", and I now see I would have been right. Even though the proportion of disruptive editing is high, I would be reluctant to block IP ranges with significant amounts of constructive editing for the very long period that would be necessary, so perhaps the way forward is to go through the tedious process of 365 semi-protections. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:32, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No, 366. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:33, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@JamesBWatson: Yeah, that may have to be the solution. Either option is disruptive to legitimate editors, so these are never easy decisions to make, but protecting the date pages may be less disruptive overall as non-confirmed users can still make edit requests at the talk page. Sasquatch t|c 19:36, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. For now I have re-blocked 1.144.108.0/22 for two weeks to buy some time. If we do protect the articles, we can lift that block, but I can't even consider putting in the time required for all those protections now, or even a significant proportion of them.
If there were any way of checking, I would be willing to bet very heavily that the IP editor who made the unblock request, and who since the unblock has posted on numerous IP-block-related talk pages, is the date editor. Nothing that I could put forward as proof, but the whole tenor and tone of the editing is that which I have learnt over the years is typical of an editor who thinks he or she should be allowed to do anything they like and resents being prevented, and not at all typical of the attitude of a genuine innocent bystander caught up in collateral damage. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:49, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately once again the disruptive edits have returned, for example 1.144.111.219 & 1.129.105.137 + many more on a lot of different dates. This person just seems to write down on their calendar when their block expires and continue ignoring everything... -Redalert2fan (talk) 09:30, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Now who's hounding who?

[1] Johnbod (talk) 21:12, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Johnbod: Drop it already. JesseRafe is not hounding your edits. They appear to have made an edit to Suzi Leather independently, you reverted, they reverted back. Start an RFC if you want more input like you have said already multiple times. Hounding is when a user systematically goes through someone's edits on unrelated topics and issues to confront them. There is no evidence, other than a dispute about the manual of style, that JesseRafe has done such a thing. I suggest you learn to address things more collaboratively with that editor if you have an issue rather than throwing out spurious complaints. Sasquatch t|c 22:35, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:War Operation Plan Response

This user has accused me of being a paedophile and being a severely sick individual. He also accused Wikipedia personnel of harboring and protecting me. This is libellous and a violation of BLP. can you take action against them please? Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 02:06, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

UTRS Request #25745

Howdy, I should welcome your views at this appeal, please. Thanks. Just Chilling (talk) 01:43, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorted; thanks for your help. Just Chilling (talk) 19:17, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your re-block of 2a01:114f:904:1f00::/64

Just giving you a heads-up that this editor has also used 37.248.161.175 and 83.23.239.38. –Skywatcher68 (talk) 13:12, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Skywatcher68: No activity from those IPs recently. If you find a new active one, report it to AIV. This is typical of a IP hopping long term abuse user where they hop from between public wifi spots. A block is usually not necessary on old IPs. Sasquatch t|c 19:53, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge request

Can you merge the following 2 titles Madhuraswapnam and Madhura Swapanam. Both are same movie. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 106.197.164.181 (talk) 07:09, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. 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 2019 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) 00:04, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year Sasquatch!

Happy New Year!
Hello Sasquatch:
Thanks for all of your contributions to improve the encyclopedia for Wikipedia's readers, and have a happy and enjoyable New Year! Cheers, Donner60 (talk) 05:35, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]



Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks (static)}} to user talk pages with a friendly message.

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of My Baby Burger

A tag has been placed on Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of My Baby Burger requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more 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 you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. UnitedStatesian (talk) 20:12, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Birthday!

Happy Birthday!

Have a very happy birthday on your special day!

Best wishes, CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 00:52, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

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) 01:18, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Birthday!

Happy Birthday!

Have a very happy birthday on your special day!

Best wishes, CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 08:40, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page comment removal

Hi Sasquatch! On another user's talk page, you recently told them not to "delete other user's comments". To my knowledge, it's totally acceptable to do so. Am I wrong? Firefangledfeathers (talk) 17:30, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Firefangledfeathers: I reviewed the policy and you are absolutely correct. For some reason I thought there was something about warnings not being deleted but I see now it is much more narrow. I was going to address the same point the deleted comment made, but I will do so in a new warning next time. Thanks for pointing that out. Sasquatch t|c 20:32, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A cup of coffee for you!

Thanks for helping me out with Wikipedia! Voraciousdolphin (talk) 21:01, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:2Rhwjt

Please Don't Block Me 2Rhwjt (talk) 19:00, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@2Rhwjt: As long as you understand why your edits were not helpful and refrain from doing that in the future, there will be no need to anyone to block you from editing. Sasquatch t|c 19:03, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

goat says:

moo

ExcutientTalk 20:42, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

New to editing - D Hutto

Dear Sasquatch

I am utter novice to editing pages on Wikipedia. I created my account of 3 July in order to protect the biography of a living person (myself) from vandalism. I recognise the COI in this case. I utterly respect the need for neutrality and the sharing factual information. However, the page on me has, over time, been edited in such a way that information on my scholarly achievements has been stripped back in order to make other information about my involvement in the creation of new degree program - a BA in Western Civilisation at the University of Wollongong more prominent in unbalanced and non-neutral way. The page is missing other important details, currently contains factual errors, and spelling mistakes. I would like to provide a substantial, accurate update for this page but I do not wish to run foul of your COI rules. How can I best do thatDanhutto (talk) 22:35, 4 July 2021 (UTC)?[reply]

Danhutto Hello Dan, have you reviewed our guide to best practices for editing your own article? I would start there. First off, you need to disclose your conflicts of interest per our policy here. From there, for any substantial additions, please suggest it on the talk page of the article in a new section and user the {{Request edit}} template after which it will be reviewed and potentially added. Copy edits for grammar or removal of unsourced negative content (like the edits you made recently) are generally considered okay. However, if they are reverted, please discuss on the talk page and do not engage in edit warring. Beyond that, the guide has information on what we limit our articles too. You may also want to review our policy on reliable sources with a focus on our policy on self-published sources. Sasquatch t|c 01:39, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

About rollback rights

Sir, I want to ask you, can I apply for rollback rights now, Please see my edit history? ItsSkV08 (talk) 13:10, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ItsSkV08 I see you made a request recently. I would wait at least a month before requesting again and consider why you believe you need rollback powers as discussed. Sasquatch t|c 16:53, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Bresnick

Hello Sasquatch. Thanks for your note on my post regarding Martin Bresnick. I'm completely new to Wikipedia, so I appreciate your message. I'm a fan of Martin's music, but perhaps I should understand more about Wikipedia before I go editing things. The references for the information I added are from Martin's own homepage and from the website of his publisher, Carl Fischer. But I'm afraid I'm not sure how to proceed from here. I guess one question I have is whether it's possible to revert to the form of the page before I added my edits and to start over. I'd appreciate your advice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Orkney94 (talk • contribs)

Orkney94 Thanks for reaching out! For starters, Wikipedia keeps a copy of any edits that were made that can be accessed from the page history. Your revision can be found here. I strongly suggest your carefully review our help guide on referencing. Some important policy to review carefully are our policies on verifiability, neutral point of view and reliable sources. I reverted your edits because you did not provide any reliable sources. We generally require secondary sources (i.e. sources that don't come from the subject themselves) for information that we put into an article. There were a couple of problems with your edits as you presented them. First, you simply made a large list of awards that reads more like a resume and ganders more into promotion than a neutral point of view. I also went back and removed claims like he is "widely influential teacher of contemporary composition" that are reliable, independent, secondary sources to back up that claim. Same with the description of what his compositions are like. We generally want to avoid sources from PR pages (like from music publishers) when backing up these claims as well. Although it may seem harsh at time, we are committed to verifiability, not truth on Wikipedia (that is to say, simply being a true fact or opinion is not enough). If there are news sources, books, or academic sources (e.g. papers) on his work that can back up this information, then it is our job to find a neutral way to present that information and source it properly. To get you started, maybe reviewing some papers like this one or this one would be useful in crafting a paragraph on Bresnick's style. Finding news articles on major awards he has on and giving proper weight to them in the article would also be appropriate. I hope that helps! (PS, please try to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~)). Sasquatch t|c 19:18, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If you can find access to this 1998 NYT article, it may also be helpful in citing a lot of the career history and style. I'll try to find some time to find a home for the content in the article but always glad if someone else can help! Sasquatch t|c 19:37, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gun IP vandal

Hi Sasquatch. You just blocked 174.196.197.6 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) for their vandalism on gun articles. They have popped up again as 174.242.77.61 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) with the same edits on the same articles. Could you apply a block to that one as well? Many thanks, Laplorfill (talk) 00:58, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Laplorfill yeah, I'm looking into an appropriate range right now. Sasquatch t|c 01:00, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks indeed. Best, Laplorfill (talk) 01:01, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Now switched to an IPv6 address 2600:1000:B05B:6613:AD41:31B5:D170:2BFC (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). Would it be worth doing an RfPP on the set of articles involved? Laplorfill (talk) 01:06, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah that may be the answer. Whack-a-mole is getting too hard. Sasquatch t|c 01:12, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Prakrit

Suggest you revisit Prakrit, as your revert reverted, but with somewhat different wording and more refs. David notMD (talk) 08:04, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Request for unblocking

Hi Sasquatch. Hope you are well. Incase you didn't get the ping, or my edit gets reverted, I've added these comments in regards to A.A Prinon's unblock. If you need anything else from me, please get back to me. Thanks. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 09:40, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Apologization

Hello there. I just wanted to let know my apologies for asking another editor which country they are from. Won't do this kind of mistake anymore. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chynapras (talk • contribs)

Chynapras Thank you. Please review the policies I outlined carefully. Especially our personal attacks policy which clearly states: Comment on content, not on the contributor. Veiled allegations that someone is making certain edits because they are of a certain nationality are clearly inappropriate. Sasquatch t|c 19:57, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome. And I will obviously go through the policies that you gave me. And I just ended my rivalry and my fight with Mr. Prinon. So no more personal attacks. Just peace. And I am sorry again for asking another editor his living country. Will obviously try to show more professionalism from next time as you asked me. Thank you for rectifying my mistake. 👉Chynapras👈 (talk) 20:03, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lugnuts

Hi. I think I had done grave mistake by apologising Lugnuts. I have promised that I wouldn't stalk their edits. And I am really not stalking. But they have recently reverted my edits at Will Buttleman. As I have said earlier, I will try to discuss with them politely. I have tried to leave them a message on their talk page. But they reverted my edit saying me an "idiot". So, isn't it a personal attack? As I have promised, I won't attack them in any circumstances, but I need help in these situations. So, please help me what shall I do? — A.A Prinon  Leave a dialogue 07:52, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A.A Prinon How do you find pages to edit? Also, why did you suddenly show an interest in Pascasio Sola after your unblock? Sasquatch t|c 08:12, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I edit pages based on recent coverages or match reports. But, I am now never stalking their edits. How can I now make you believe? What have I done to cause them annoy? And I have not suddenly shown interest in Pascasio Sola. I earlier also created a couple of football articles, Sayed Rased Turzo and Anguilla national football team results (1985–1999). Although, I don't have vast idea about football, I sometimes create stub articles related to footballers. I haven't made any personal attacks on that user. And are you supporting Lugnuts' behaviour in this instance? — A.A Prinon  Leave a dialogue 08:57, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Will Buttleman was edited by Lugnuts one month ago, so how can it be stalking? — A.A Prinon  Leave a dialogue 09:01, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A.A Prinon I'm dealing with that separately. There's nothing further for me to do at this point from my perspective. If there are further issues please take it to the appropriate noticeboard. Sasquatch t|c 10:25, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your kind reply. I was just asking you not to believe in Lugnuts, he is perhaps trying to re-block me by misleading the admins. I will never make any WP:PAs in any circumstances, I will keep ignoring Lugnuts, as I am not really stalking their edits. Thanks. — A.A Prinon  Leave a dialogue 10:41, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sasquatch - sorry to burden you with this, but seeing as this is still ongoing, I feel obliged to respond. Note how Prinon doesn't answer your question about Pascasio Sola directly, instead just mentioning a footballer they created two months ago. The only article that links to Sola's page is 1955 South American Championship squads. This list I'd been working on a day either side of the creation of Sola's biography. So how exactly did Prinon chance upon him and create a biography? In the past two or three days, there have been these edits, with every one that passes more and more AGF filters away:
You asked me to "tone it down" on my talkpage, which I'm happy to do so. How much good faith do I give here? After they agreed to a vol. i-ban, and promise not to return to houding/stalking AFTER being blocked for it, this continues. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 11:35, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Lugnuts: I don't care who created the article or else. Ok, to prevent accusations on stalking, from the next time I will see if it was recently edited by you or not. I even didn't know that 1955 Copa America was created by you or you were working on it. Apart of it, As I have told earlier, I save page into watchlist for 1 week after editing. I assure you I am not stalking your edits. Please show some WP:AGF. — A.A Prinon  Leave a dialogue 11:45, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And all the diffs you cited, there is a one day gap between my and your edits. So, it can't be stalking. If it was stalkibg, I would edit minutes after. My and your edit has big difference, none of those are causing you annoy, those aren't hounding. — A.A Prinon  Leave a dialogue 11:50, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lugnuts, If you are assuming bad faith, I also have to. When there's one day gap between my and your edits, you are calling stalking. Then I also have to cite some examples.
There are many such examples that can be cited, but I don't accuse Lugnuts of stalking, because I always assume good faith. — A.A Prinon  Leave a dialogue 12:14, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've told you several times now - stop pinging me. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 12:15, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Lugnuts, now you are admitting that you are stalking my edits, right? — A.A Prinon  Leave a dialogue 12:16, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Sasquatch&oldid=1033072270"