User talk:Euryalus/Archive15

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

-- For the drive co-ordinators, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:27, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Hey y'all, the

Happy First Edit Day!

Have a very happy first edit anniversary!

From the

Birthday Committee, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T)

22:28, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

Precious

Seven years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:49, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

@Gerda Arendt: Belatedly, thank you for these messages. Always nice to hear a kind word from afar. -- Euryalus (talk) 11:48, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for sending a ban message kindly, that's new. (Compare. Same dates.) I still feel that Wikipedia would have been better without excluding an editor who helped greatly to add content to this project, - more than I did. Where did we go wrong, deviating from collaboration to blaming one person? Why had we to kick someone (out) who was down (and gone) already? Why are a few people some of whom didn't even look deeply enough into the problems "the community"? Why is good faith in so short supply? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:36, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

@Gerda Arendt: Hi, and thanks for the message. I agree this is a terrible shame -- whatever LouisAlain's approach to referencing they were clearly someone with a commitment to Wikipedia and some fantastic contributions over the years. And the referencing thing could have been dealt with in other ways, for example by creating their articles in draft or in userspace, and having someone else check the refs before posting them live. They decided against these options at AN (as is their right), but I wish they hadn't as the ban might not have proceeded.

Also agree there's a wider issue re the decline of collaboration. Have been here long enough to remember when unsourced sentences were responded to with "citation needed" tags rather than reversion. And when new pages weren't immediately tagged for deletion if the first edit was imperfect. It's hard to work out why this has changed - perhaps the years of trolls, sealions, paid editors and POV-pushers just wore down community trust. Solutions are needed, but will require more thought.

And all that said: the LouisAlain referencing issue was a real concern, especially the use of new accessdates for references that had never been checked. That was the most disappointing part of the whole thing, because it takes advantage of other's trust. If I saw a reference with a recent accesssdate from any respected editor, it would never occur to me that I'd need to check it again. The community's decision was ultimately about that loss of trust.

So where to from here re LouisAlain? I guess that's up to them. There were plenty of editors at AN who would have agreed to lesser restrictions than a ban, had that been acceptable to him. And perhaps after reflection he might still desire to edit here, and will lodge an appeal agreeing to some kind of restriction. Someone once told me that "trust arrives on foot and leaves on horseback," so it will take some to restore. But it's not impossible, and not everyone has a pitchfork and a flaming brand for good-faith editors who were removed from the community and want to return.

Or perhaps they won't appeal. Most people don't, and most then find other ways to express themselves and share their love of knowledge online. If LouisAlain doesn't come back to en-WP then hopefully we can all agree to wish them all the best wherever their interests take them. And to go on creating articles (and referencing them) in the area they used to work in. -- Euryalus (talk) 00:39, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your thoughts. I invite you to a stroll over my talk and look for his name. Perhaps ban me, because I do it all the time: add today's date as access-date when the link still works. In half of the cases when I translate from German, links don't work any more. How can a French person be expected to not only translate but also check if the German ref supports a claim? You mentioned trust. Why not trust in good faith that a German article - about a museum, a musicologist, a music educator - is correct, and add a citation tag if in doubt. People said on AN that no article would be better than one with no solid references, and I disagree. Would no article be better that Max Creutz?? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:47, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Mildly, the Max Creutz article looks fine to me and thanks for the opportunity to read it. Its quality seems to be as much thanks to you as to LouisAlain, but ultimately everything is a collaboration with someone. I have no idea if the references are accurate because I'm sadly monolingual. But I'm happy to take your word for it that you've checked them in editing the page, which is probably what I would have done upon seeing a page entirely edited by LouisAlain, at least prior to the AN thread. I guess that is what I was saying about trust: it should jsut be the routine expectation that longterm respected editors are correctly using sources. I can understand the community's displeasure in finding that not done in this case. And of course I entirely agree with this sentence: How can a French person be expected to not only translate but also check if the German ref supports a claim? It seems a Sisyphean task to monolinguists like me, but that's why I don't even try it and instead stick to sources in my own language. That limits my editing: I have for example a great set of works on eighteenth century Dutch naval vessels but I cannot turn them into articles because the references within them aren't in English. It's disappointing, but there it is: no reference checking means no article.

Despite the above, I don't really want to relitigate the entire AN thread so will simply restate that it's a shame that LouisAlain ended up banned, and the discussion might have gone a different way if he'd been willing to do have someone like you formally check his referencing before articles went live. I also agreed with you up above re adding citation tags to unsourced material from respected editors. That's the way it used to be done and it mostly worked fine. But the community is in a different place now: there's more attention to sourcing and less tolerance for having to cleaning up after others. Plus things like misleading accessdates issue would never have been tolerated, back then or now. It was unnecessary, and probably tipped the balance for some people at AN. -- Euryalus (talk) 08:11, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

I can give you easily hundred more articles such as Creutz, or check here (66 and more to come) for LouisAlain, and here (68), and here (54). I debated with myself to leave this heartless community nine years ago, but decided against it, and am immune since. The work just got harder, and the loss of articles that will remain unwritten is no pleasant prospect. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:39, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on

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. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 15:50, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on

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. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:02, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Please restore this article that was deleted by an AFD. [1] . As per [2] and his current record [3], he know qualifies for a standalone article. [4] Thank you BlackAmerican (talk) 12:41, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

@

deletion review. I've userfied it to User:BlackAmerican/Userfied Borics article so you have the earlier content to work from. -- Euryalus (talk

) 00:23, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited The Wild Colonial Boy, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Jack Donohue.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:56, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

I have drafted an alternative version of this essay at

Hi, Euryalus, thanks for your note. I have still a bit of a way to go with this one, and with recent efforts on William Garrard and George Barne (died 1558), all interrelated for obvious reasons, where I need to develop Barne and Hussey on the Marian period/Muscovy co, and Garrard on his shrieval year (as per Barne's mayoral). I am just working over Hussey waiting to go through the Pole period and the Parker consecration register controversy.... I'm looking forward to tying it all up a bit over the next couple of weeks while I grope through a course of antibiotics! Your kind remark is appreciated. Eebahgum (talk) 01:16, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

P.S. re Wild Colonial Boy, they have missed the best line - "One morning on the prairie as Jackie rode along, Listening to the

kukaburra's pleasant laughing song..." Someone in the room usually used to interject a maniacal laughing noise when this line was sung (ha-ha-ha-HAha). Kukaburras make a mocking noise Eebahgum (talk

) 09:13, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

@Calliopejen1: Hi, and thanks for the message.

You're right, the word "personally" is incorrect. People should not include material in Wikipedia that is unsourced; nor should they include material that mentions sources that haven't actually been looked at. Of course it is possible to translate something and have someone else then check the the sourcing for you, but this is ideally not something you'd do with live edits because unless/until someone actually does check your sourcing there's at least a chance that what is being presented is outdated or wrong. However, to make this more specific to this case, what would you think of this: "There's consensus in this thread against LouisAlain's actions in porting over articles from other Wikipedias without personallyanyone checking the references."

On the wider issue I don't personally see the need to amend translation guidelines to make it explicit that you cannot copy material to en-WP without anyone checking the references. The translations page needs to be read in context with other policies against adding unreferenced materials. Material where a generalised reference link is just pasted in without being looked, at might as well have no reference at all for all the validity it has. But that's just my opinion, which counts for 1/42millionth of the editor base. Many people have sincere and credible views on both sides of the argument about how translation referencing should be handled (with a sterner hand; with more good faith that whatever original referencing it had is fine, with greater regard for the complexities of multilingual sourcing, etc). So regardless of my opinion or the community's view on LouisAlain's editing access: if anyone thinks en-WP would benefit from more policy clarity on how to handle refs in translations then that should certainly be encouraged and can be commenced by anyone at any time, without feeling that some random AN close is the final say. -- Euryalus (talk) 22:37, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, Euryalus. I think that revision is good. I agree that there was consensus against LouisAlain's practices, I just don't want people citing to this AN close as some broader policy prescription. I definitely concur that there are differences of opinion here! And I think the question of whether it's okay to translate fr:Ancien tramway de Rouen, for example, without having the hard-copy sources in front of you, is one that should await another day--and not be discussed in the context of a user who is doing many other things wrong as well... It may be that that is okay, and LouisAlain's lazy copying of deadlinks (along with all his other issues) is not okay. I guess we'll find that answer out if anyone else cares to raise the issue for community discussion! Calliopejen1 (talk) 22:48, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

 Done here. -- Euryalus (talk) 23:03, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

(If I may chime in.) On the Main page now

If you want to know why it is called "fake referencing", see e.g.

Fram (talk

) 08:48, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

I call it helplessness. - I couldn't find references in Japanese. Why expect that a French person finds them in German. Even I often have trouble to find what a German article may be based upon, but I trust that most are based on something decent. The topic was discussed at Floq's page, btw. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:14, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

In one can't find references in German, one shouldn't translate articles from German. Worse, if one can't find references, one shouldn't pretend that they can anyway, by adding fake references or by faking the "retrieved" date of no longer available references as if the editor read them anyway.

Fram (talk

) 10:00, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

We heard that before, and I don't agree. We drove LouisAlain away, and I doubt he would want to work with us. What do we do with the next senior citizen who devotes his time to providing background about museums, the writers of our sources that are red links, all these minor topics, while Grimes2 and I do the Primadonna assoluta. I am afraid the "minor" topics will remain uncovered, and while several expressed that no article is better than one lacking references, I don't agree. Fram, I pinged you to not talk behind your back, but further discussion please on your talk or mine. Here, I try to explain things to Euryalus. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:56, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Hey. Good point about how invoking the latter is generally better than the former. I wonder what else can be done to highlight that, seeing as the prevalence of BEANS is so much greater. Best, El_C 13:49, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

I've just added See also

WP:NEEDTOKNOW for a more in-depth presentation of this maxim to the This page in a nutshell box (diff). Please let me know what you think. Thanks! El_C

14:01, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Happy Adminship Anniversary!

Wishing Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Have a great day! Bobherry Talk Edits 03:13, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Happy Adminship Anniversary!

Birthday Committee! Best wishes! CAPTAIN RAJU^(T)

18:10, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

a template tweaker to make importance live for the piracy project - trust you have a clue or two to organise that JarrahTree 11:21, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

@JarrahTree: Yes, easy done if people want it. Not sure I agree that it's a useful categorisation but will post at WP:YAR and see what the general view is. -- Euryalus (talk) 19:59, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Another BLPvio still visible here. Also, would the birth date on the article be revdel worthy, as it is unsourced? Thanks. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:30, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

@ScottishFinnishRadish: thanks, done. Agree with reverting the birth dates and middle name as unsourced, but these would only be borderline for revdel as the subject is not a minor or a marginally notable figure. Are they particularly controversial topics? If so that also might justify revdel on top of regular removal. But absent any of these Am inclined to just leave them where they are as deleted edits. Other views welcome, of course. -- Euryalus (talk) 19:41, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

You might want to pull talk page access as well, as he's continuing. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:47, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Hi

Hello. I've had an observation floating in the back of my mind for a while about how the dialog sometimes goes when a blocked user posts an unblock request. I decided to pose this to you with respect to your remarks at User talk:HELLO IM NAZEEF following those previously left by User:Daniel Case.

The user was blocked for uploading copyrighted images. The user has said quite affirmatively, specifically, and multiple times that they won't upload copyrighted images any more. I don't understand the part where Daniel Case spelled out the following questions to be answered: "why won't they occur again? Try to think about it in total quality management terms: How did I get it wrong? What steps will I take to avoid making the same mistake?". Nor do I understand why you sustain this as a required exercise.

Suppose an employee of mine wears a t-shirt to the office one day, and I tell them "Don't wear t-shirts to the office any more, it's against the rules", and the employee says they won't. Why would I follow up with "Why won't you wear a t-shirt again? Think about it: How did I get it wrong? What steps will I take to avoid making the same mistake?" Not wearing a t-shirt doesn't involve "steps". A person who chooses not to wear a t-shirt will simply refrain from wearing a t-shirt. It doesn't involve effort or a great deal of reflection and consideration. The employee has been made aware of the rule and has sworn not to wear a t-shirt in the future. So, besides repeating "I won't wear a t-shirt", what kind of answer is the employee supposed to craft that will be responsive to the questions?

What am I not understanding in these situations, where what the user has agreed to do or not to do seems to me to be on the level of "I won't wear a t-shirt"? Largoplazo (talk) 11:48, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

@Largoplazo: hi and sorry for the delayed reply. In this case the editor was warned by Moneytrees about uploading copyright images, then one day later decided to ignore that warning and upload another copyrighted image plus copied text to the now-deleted article on Beni Isguene, which they had moved back to mainspace from draft despite being told it was unreferenced. I don't think they did any of this maliciously - from their edit history its more likely they are just a bit unfamiliar with Wikipedia. But to use the T-shirt analogy, this is like an employee who wears a "F-you" T-shirt to the office and when told not to, comes in next day with an "F-off" T-shirt instead. It makes me kind of doubt the vague claim that they won't do it again - instead their workplace might reasonably ask them to show some sign they're aware of normal HR rules before risking a "F-everyone" T-shirt on day three.

I don't really know what total quality management means, and am not expecting an essay from them on it: all I'd need to see is a slightly more detailed indication that they've read wp:copyvio and understand that they cannot keep cutting and pasting images and text from copyrighted sources, while ignoring the warnings not to. So that's the reasoning for declining their unblock request at this point. However your message makes clear it would have been helpful of me to make this a bit clearer on their talkpage - Kuru and Moneytrees had a go earlier but it never hurts to reiterate. It's easy to get a bit too curt in unblock responses: a depressingly large number are from commercial spammers and sockmasters trying to weasel around well-deserved blocks. So will do that now, and let's see what the next request brings. -- Euryalus (talk) 03:03, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, I appreciate you sharing your insight with me. Largoplazo (talk) 03:21, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

This is probably just policy wonkery, but following on from your

@Sdrqaz: You're right (about the policy, not the wonkery). Am too used to reading this format at AE! Unfortunately the last section of the thread is also misnamed as seeking advice from administrators. Thanks for pointing this out, have added to the close. -- Euryalus (talk) 01:47, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

A

Thanks mediawiki message thing. -- Euryalus (talk) 21:41, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Actually, I just restored TPA for the unblock discussion to occur there instead of via UTRS. The blocking admin was Bbb23 and Jauerback had removed TPA. It's been > two years since the original block, and I have no insights other than the advice I copied over from UTRS. I sense no real change, but it's been > 2 years, so it's perfectly reasonable to try. There is a number of declining admins, too --Deepfriedokra (talk) 09:02, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. -- Euryalus (talk) 09:20, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

I am Petros Apostolopoulos, a Ph.D. candidate in Public History at North Carolina State University. My Ph.D. project examines how historical knowledge is produced on Wikipedia. You must be 18 years of age or older, reside in the United States to participate in this study. If you are interested in participating in my research study by offering your own experience of writing about history on Wikipedia, you can click on this link https://ncsu.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_9z4wmR1cIp0qBH8. There are minimal risks involved in this research.

If you have any questions, please let me know. Petros Apostolopoulos, [email protected] Apolo1991 (talk) 17:04, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

@Apolo1991: thanks for the message but I don't reside in the United States. I agree with posts on your talkpage that surveying a global project but limiting responses to American residents is a design flaw. I know this was not by choice, and not to be taken personally. However your university's ethics committee might consider approving future research on the impact of cultural imperialism in survey design. -- Euryalus (talk) 01:56, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

Hi on Instagram Tom Holland has stated that he is in a relationship with actress Zendaya by saying my MJ and so I believe her personal life needs to be change, here is the link confirming that : https://www.instagram.com/p/CTRzVkrq2wN/?utm_medium=copy_link Goku MUI1997 (talk) 17:14, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

@

reliable source specifically confirming that a relationship exists before this could be added to the article. If there is such a source (ie something more specific and reliable than this Instagram post), the best place to link it at present is at Talk:Zendaya where discussion is under way on this topic. All the best. -- Euryalus (talk

) 01:38, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

Hi Euryalus—I noticed that you semi-protected the Edward Kosner article, and for that I thank you. However, did you mean to protect it indefinitely? I checked to see if there had been a RfPP request because I was curious, and I saw that when you responded to the relevant RfPP request, you stated 1 week to be the duration of protection. --Dylan620 (he/him · talk · edits) 03:03, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

@Dylan620: yeah indefinite seems a bit excessive, must have been a misclick. Have shortened it to what I said in the RfPP, thanks for highlighting it (and removing the unsourced material in the first place). -- Euryalus (talk) 03:57, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

Well, the editor did reference a legit op-ed by the subject (albeit without actually linking to it)... and in it, Kosner explicitly states that he does not want his religion mentioned in his article, and there's consensus to back him up. --Dylan620 (he/him · talk · edits) 04:14, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

Yes true, and that's a good close by Drmies. -- Euryalus (talk) 06:45, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

I'm very sorry Sir, but this is the only place where she gave that crucial information, which is not only undebatable because it comes from her, but above all because the Egyptian Negative confession testifies to its accurateness.

Thanks for the message. It's an interesting theory. But it's not in the mainstream of academic thought on the Ten Commandments, which is why it keeps getting removed by other editors. Can I suggest that you post the material you'd like to include at

reliable sources that support it? That way there can be a collaborative discussion on what might or might not be included in the article. -- Euryalus (talk

) 22:07, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

I'm afraid that no one on wikipedia is qualified to assert that whatever of Mrs Desroches Noblecourt's words, wherever she may have delivered them, would be unreliable. Any discussion about it would be a ridiculous insult to her memory. The fact is that the information is not contested in wikipedia French and Italian. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.175.32.124 (talk) 22:14, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Alas that's not how Wikipedia works. If you don't have reliable sources then the material cannot be added to the article. -- Euryalus (talk) 22:16, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

But no editor of any wiki may assert that the Figaro magazine (the French equivalent of Time mazazine) would be unreliable. Saying the contrary would grossly Francophobic. Similarly, no editor of the wiki may assert that the last six commandments would not be excerpted from the Egyptian Negative confession. Please be honest.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.175.32.124 (talk)

Rubbish. Someone saying a comment in one random French newspaper might not be sufficient to reference a new and dramatic theory in a longstanding article, is not "Francophobic" or anything like it. Have to say you've lost me with that pointless suggestion. Don't keep adding improperly referenced material to this article. And please consult both

WP:FRINGE. -- Euryalus (talk

) 22:24, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Since your terms: "a comment", "a new and dramatic theory" insult both Mrs Desroches Noblecourt and the best internationally known French magazine, you violate the rules of this wiki. Do you mean that the Egyptian negative confession is dramatic? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.175.32.124 (talk)

Alas I am not interested. Please stop posting this nonsense here. If you have reliable sources for your theories you can flag them on the article talkpage. -- Euryalus (talk) 22:39, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

I'm not interested in your lies and bad faith. Stop insulting me, Mrs Desroches Noblecourt, French publications and France. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.175.32.124 (talk) 22:45, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

"Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources,"

Nobody here may affirm that the Figaro magazine is either not reliable or unpublished.

How can you affirm that it is not reliable when it is considered reliable by wikipedia French (see datation: https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/D%C3%A9calogue#Datation) and Italian (https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dieci_comandamenti)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.175.32.124 (talk)

I've indented your comments to make the thread easier to read. Mildly, ranting about "lies" and "Francophobia" doesn't strengthen your argument. But either way you've been advised multiple times to discuss your proposed edit on the article talkpage, with due regard for

"Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources,"

Nobody here may affirm that the Figaro magazine is either unreliable or unpublished.

How can you affirm that it is unreliable when it is considered reliable by the Italian (https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dieci_comandamenti) and French (see Datation: https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/D%C3%A9calogue#Datation) editors?

A wikipedia editor may not write: "I'm not interested" concerning an information that he himself considers dramatic.

I need to add that Mrs Desroches Noblecourt's affirmations necessarily belong to "the mainstream of academic thought on the Ten Commandments". Indeed, firstly she is the author of the following 37 books or articles and, secondly, there is not a single Egyptologist who would deny that the last 6 commandments would not be excerpted from the Egyptian Negative confession.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.175.32.124 (talk) 03:25, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Discuss article content on the article talkpage please. -- Euryalus (talk) 03:59, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

APOLOGY

Dear Euryalus, after having been surprised by your term "dramatic", I thought over this reaction, to conclude that you must be Jewish and opposed to the thesis that the Hebrews were mere Egyptians. So I was wrong to speak of French phobia; it is Israel philia. Therefore, the fact - that may not be called a thesis - that the last six commandments are excerpted from the Negative confession shocks your sensivity. Please, consider that an encyclopedia must tell the truth, however unpleasant to some it may be. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.175.32.124 (talk) 09:49, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Good lord, really? I think you're off track with your analysis, but thanks for the apology. I'm neither French nor Israeli, and I actually know nothing at all about Egyptology. Am only a part of this issue as an uninvolved administrator who protected the page to prevent the ongoing edit war over poorly sourced material, per

WP:PROTECT

.

That's why I keep urging you to argue your case on the article talkpage rather than here: I'm not the one you need to convince regarding your Negative confession claim, as I'm not a content editor in the Ten Commandments article. I see you've posted your proposed paragraph on the talkpage and that is exactly the right step. It's now up to other content editors of this article (not me) to offer a view in whether it should be included, including whether it is sufficiently well sourced and of

due weight

. If there is consensus to include it, then it can be added to the article page. If not, then not. If consensus is reached either way, the current page protection can be removed.

Hope that explanation is useful. As above, all the best with the discussion and let's see how it turns out. -- Euryalus (talk) 10:54, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

A token of thanks Hi Euryalus! I've nominated you (along with all other active admins) to receive a solstice season gift from the WMF. Talk page stalkers are invited to comment at the nomination. Enjoy! Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}} talk ~~~~~

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:50, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, appreciate the sentiment. I suspect the bulk nomination will be declined but it's a nice idea. -- Euryalus (talk) 00:49, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.