User talk:Euryalus

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

Howdi Gaudi[edit]

A couple of years back, you deleted a page for a show called Howdi Gaudi. Do you remember anything that was said?2600:6C5A:417F:794E:82B:319A:7DB1:3DCB (talk) 03:10, 24 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, and sure thing. The entire article text at time of deletion was "Howdi Gaudi is a Spanish cartoon." This was referenced with [1] and [2].
It was deleted as there was no evidence of notability at the time. However do please feel free to create a new version if this is now a notable cartoon. Hope that's helpful and all the best, Euryalus (talk) 12:09, 24 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Do you think we can lose the full protection now that an RfC has been started for the issue that caused the edit warring? The situation might now be better addressed with an arbitration remedy such as consensus required or BRD required. ––FormalDude (talk) 01:54, 13 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@FormalDude: thanks for the message (and cool username). The consensus required restriction might work, especially if there's general support for it from some of the page regulars (otherwise these restrictions can tend to a sort of "second mover" advantage). Will have a re-read of the discussion today and maybe propose this on the talkpage.
Unrelatedly, @Locke Cole: just noting I received the ping re page protection the other day, please accept my apologies for not responding directly but rl got in the way. -- Euryalus (talk) 04:06, 13 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No worries, real life has been a distraction for me lately as well. It happens to us all. Appreciate the work you do! —Locke Coletc 05:10, 13 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Done, with only mild trepidation. Let's see how it goes. -- Euryalus (talk) 08:40, 13 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks! Friendly reminder to update the page notice with Template:Contentious topics/page restriction editnotice. ––FormalDude (talk) 15:34, 13 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Twitter Inc. and the joke that wouldn't die[edit]

Anons resumed adding Musk's dog Floki as the CEO as soon as your protection expired. Mind extending? Funcrunch (talk) 18:24, 17 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That's still supposedly funny? Ah well,  Done -- Euryalus (talk) 20:14, 17 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A Topic ban appeal in which you were involved[edit]

This is to notify you that I have logged an appeal to my Topic ban here which you were actively involved in and which you may wish to comment on.Davidbena (talk) 12:30, 24 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks Davidbena, have commented at the appeal. -- Euryalus (talk) 03:11, 3 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

More vandalism[edit]

User:, whom you previously blocked, is continuing to vandalize multiple articles. Would you please revisit this? -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:16, 24 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Done -- Euryalus (talk) 23:12, 24 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Precious anniversary[edit]

Nine years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:08, 29 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Gerda Arendt: thanks, that's very kind of you. These make me feel guilty about not writing more FA's :) -- Euryalus (talk) 02:06, 7 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

ANI thread that may be of interest[edit]

Given your attention to some of the user's past edits. [3]. Thanks, (talk) 18:33, 6 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Agree it's someone using a chatbot to re-write bloviation into worse bloviation. Happy to assume good faith that they think they're improving these articles, but it is becoming disruptive. They need to respond to community concerns and start checking their contributions as they go. Let's see if they respond to the ANI thread. -- Euryalus (talk) 02:04, 7 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply][edit]

Sorry, I was about to fix that, but you blocked already. I looks like all the vandalism is actually coming from The other parts of the 17,, and, seem unrelated. They haven't been used much since November; that's what fooled me. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 01:54, 7 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Aargh. Okay, have changed it. Was thrown off a little by the previous block from Feb being the entire /17. Will take your word for it on the change. :) -- Euryalus (talk) 02:00, 7 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for blocking this range. (talk) 02:14, 7 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You may want to revoke TPA. - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 02:18, 7 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Another admin blocked the user already. These spambots have persisted for years. See User:Mathonius/Reports/Nothing to say about me really - Meta ( Cahk (talk) 09:42, 13 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Hi Maliner here. Thanks for the recent block of Eternaldeathwish. I am a recent changes patroller and mostly revert vandalism. I want to use huggle for my anti-vandalism work so requesting rollback. Your help in this regard will be appreciated. Many thanks. Maliner (talk) 10:25, 16 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Maliner: Hi, and thanks for the message! To request rollback rights, ask at Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Rollback or ask one of the administrators listed here. All the best. -- Euryalus (talk) 10:33, 16 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks. Maliner (talk) 10:46, 16 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Recent close[edit]

Hello. I am very sorry for prolonging this ordeal further, but can you please explain how it is that deleting the article whose AfD you just prematurely closed was necessary in terms of wp:child protect. This policy is mostly about inappropriate adult-child relationships being fostered onwiki, but the section that gets closest to being applicable is this:

Editors seemingly pushing agendas can be referred to any administrator in exactly the same way as any other POV-pushing allegation. Comments posted on Wikipedia suggesting that an editor may be a pedophile will be suppressed promptly, to avoid issues of privacy and possible libel. You should raise your concerns only by email; questions or accusations directed against a particular editor in project space may result in a block for the editor who posted them.

The necessary steps here have already been done in several blocks. This policy page does not imply that deleting an article written by a POV pusher is needed as part of child protection, especially if the article can be improved to remove the distortions of the topic by the POV pusher through normal editing (as myself and Alalch E. had been attempting, though I think we could have used a lot of help. Our efforts can still be seen on I strongly fear this deletion and salting will indirectly have the reverse of the intended effect of wp:child protect in the long term.

Secondly, consensus is not a vote, which is especially relevant when about 80% of !votes say almost the same thing, and there may have developed a fear about not !voting delete as the majority of people who !voted keep early on were bad faith editors, or possibly socks of one person, and were banned. For this reason I would like your assurance that you have carefully read the history page and the article in its most recent state, which differs in significant ways from the version that existed for the majority of the AfD's duration, and checked at least the rough applicability of each of these heavily repeated assertions to it. Thank you. small jars tc 08:51, 17 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, and thanks for the message. There was community consensus that this is a relatively fringe term which might justify a mention in related articles but does not justify a separate article separate from other terms and encyclopedic content related to the same concept. The AfD and related discussions (including the recent ANI thread) indicate some relevance to this sentence from WP:CHILDPRO: expressing the view that inappropriate relationships are not harmful to children. However WP:CFORK, WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE were also relevant to this AfD.
I'm not sure what you mean by I strongly fear this deletion and salting will indirectly have the reverse of the intended effect of wp:child protect in the long term. How does reduced encyclopedia coverage of this fringe descriptive term make it harder to protect children? Feel free to explain further if you wish to pursue this point.
Relatedly, please note the close did not make any accusations against any editor or call anyone a "POV pusher" or other names. A number of contributors to the discussion did appear to be single-purpose accounts canvassed to the debate. They are entitled to their views but those views carry somewhat less weight than did those of other editors on either side of the discussion. The outcome was in any case not based on numbers but on policy applicability which (in the community's consensus view and my view as closer) supported deletion.
If it's any reassurance I certainly did read the article in an earlier and the immediately current form, as well as all of the contributions to the AfD including yours. I appreciate the outcome is not one that you agree with, given your !vote at the AfD. While I'm comfortable with the close as a reflection of community consensus and editing policies, you are of course very welcome to request an independent deletion review.
Hope that's helpful, and all the best -- Euryalus (talk) 09:52, 17 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Add: Have added my first par above to the closing statement in the AfD, as it explains the rationale better and in more detail than what I originally posted. --Euryalus (talk) 09:58, 17 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you. I will probably never get over my convictions about the relevance of those policies to this situation, but I am grateful for your explanation and the assurance about the process behind the close. When I mentioned “POV pusher” I was referring to the section that I quoted from the policy that your close cited, as well as to the effective creator of the article, 22spears, rather than to the wording of your close itself. I have found a lot of my discussion with other editors during this process regrettable and embarrassing, which might be due to me becoming somewhat obsessive about this topic over the past few days, so I am not keen on requesting a deletion review. However, your close states that If there's ever a legitimate reason to recreate, this should be via discussion on an established article talk page, at which time if consensus is established the salting can be removed. Would it be worthwhile for me to attempt to write a draft on the topic that attempts to address the concerns raised in the AfD, and if so what article talk page would be the best place to request it be moved into the main space? I feel like this is important but I don’t want to produce any more strife if it is unlikely to lead to any productive outcome.
To answer your question, the reason I think an article on the topic has the potential to do some good in terms of child protection, and why it is regrettable to delete it, is firstly that it can make readers more aware of the critiques of the rhetoric that continues to be spread by organisations such as B4U-ACT regarding pedophilia under the label of “minor attracted persons”, but more importantly that the term and it’s derivatives see continued and increasing usage on sites like twitter, particularly post-Musk, by pedophiles trying to network and identify each other, and this has already been implicated in at least one real world CSA case. I believe that keeping people informed about this terminology via reliably sourced information can be Wikipedia’s small part in preventing this kind of abuse. small jars tc 10:30, 17 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for the reply. I am certainly not encouraging anyone to recreate this article. If you want my personal opinion I'd refer you to the sentence I quoted from WP:CHILDPRO. -- Euryalus (talk) 10:46, 17 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Shouldn't it be possible to write an article about this that does not express the view that inappropriate relationships are not harmful to children, and describes those who advocate for that view in the proper light instead? Is it the title itself that treads onto dangerous ground with this policy? small jars tc 11:07, 17 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In answer to the first question, no I don't think it is. -- Euryalus (talk) 22:25, 19 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


I suggest salting the non-hyphenated title too, since it's otherwise a loophole in the salting of the hyphenated article. Best, DFlhb (talk) 09:14, 17 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Done -- Euryalus (talk) 09:59, 17 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


I don't like to communicate via email unless it's absolutely necessary (privacy issues, etc). I'm not bothered if someone protects an article that I've declined protection from; it's difficult to be entirely objective as to whether a situation merits protection. I did implement an edit filter that should put an end to future socking attempts on that article, though. OhNoitsJamie Talk 15:50, 21 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A dove[edit]

Thanks! -- Euryalus (talk) 15:09, 2 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You've got mail![edit]

Hello, Euryalus. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 02:56, 4 June 2023 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

LilianaUwU (talk / contribs) 02:56, 4 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Another account to check[edit]

Hi, I've never filed an SPI and so I realized after the fact maybe I should (not sure where), but based on your last two blocks I just noticed User:Dzx8x is still unblocked and likely the same. Let me know if I should proceed differently. Thanks. Skynxnex (talk) 01:36, 5 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks, missed that one but Ingenuity got it. -- Euryalus (talk) 13:51, 5 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yep and thanks; I was just about to reply here to note that actually. It's quite a tangled of accounts that user created... Skynxnex (talk) 13:52, 5 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You may wish to revoke TPA. Cahk (talk) 07:52, 16 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks, done. -- Euryalus (talk) 08:02, 16 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Hi Euryalus I saw you blocked the ip address and I would like to say thank you because not only were they putting unsoured content they were unnecessarily blanking sections, unnecessarily removing content and adding false information to articles, so again thank you. Jack345110 (talk) 18:09, 22 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Jack345110: no problems. Thanks for watching out for article vandalism. -- Euryalus (talk) 23:16, 23 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


thanks for putting a semi-lock on Hamish Harding's article. I had recently listed it up on the page protection request due to the ridiculous amount of vandalism happening over there, and you did it right after my request! ♡Draco Centauros♡ (talk) 04:21, 23 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Draco Centauros: no worries, just happened to be passing by. And thanks for making the request - it's surprising and disturbing how many people feel the need to post nonsense to articles on the recently deceased. -- Euryalus (talk) 23:15, 23 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Why cant Haitian people, edit the page on our own cultures religions?[edit]

Why do you allow foreignors and those not from the religion, country, or culture to edit our cultures narratives with wrong information. This is outright racist HounganC (talk) 05:54, 9 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi! Anyone can edit Wikipedia, but the content of Wikipedia articles needs to be based on reliable secondary sources and not personal opinions or original research. Your edits make a series of detailed additions to articles but none of them include any sources. You've likely noticed that your contributions were reverted by multiple editors for this reason. If you have reliable sources for the material you want to add, please include those sources when making your contributions. All the best. -- Euryalus (talk) 06:41, 9 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Do you have a business email of a wikipedia professional that we can consult to have the religions pages correctly done?[edit]

Hello our sosyete would like to work with a wikipedia professional to help us have our cultures pages represented in a way that Haitians feel is fair and just. Is their a business email of someone we can hire as a consultant to assist us with this? HounganC (talk) 00:45, 10 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@HounganC: Thanks for your message but absolutely not. If your society's views are notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia articles then a volunteer editor will no doubt add them to an article in due course. or you can do so yourself, with appropriate reliable secondary sources proving their notability. If your society's views are not notable enough for inclusion, and you pay someone to include them anyway, then they will simply be deleted again and you will have wasted your society's money. Please see pages such as WP:PROMOTION and WP:NPOV for more detail on why Wikipedia articles aren't a place for non-notable information or advocacy of particular points of view.
More generally, a large proportion of "consultants" who offer to make edits for pay are scam artists. Don't waste your time believing their promises, and don't waste your money trying to hire them to make non-notable edits. -- Euryalus (talk) 05:21, 10 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Draft: Shirsendu Mondal[edit]

Hello, I've noticed that you've deleted a draft page of mine and it wasn't even up for reviews yet. May I please know why you have deleted it? Which line seems to be promotional in the article so that I can remove/fix it accordingly. You've protected the creation of this article as it was rejected before too, but this time it wasn't even ready yet to be reviewed. So, I think I do deserve a chance to create it completely before a decision is taken about this page. Rohan208 (talk) 16:10, 12 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, and welcome to Wikipedia. You've attempted to create this article many times since March 17. Indeed it is nearly 100% of your edits. The article has been repeatedly declined and deleted as a non-notable draft. Your dedication in recreating it, plus details of the image you've added, strongly suggest a conflict of interest on your part. Unfortunately it is quite common for people to want to create Wikipedia articles on themselves or their associates as a status symbol, or to promote their business interests. However Wikipedia articles are not for these purposes: this is an encyclopedia of notable topics and the person you are attempting to make an article about is simply not notable enough for inclusion.
This has been pointed out several times by several editors, and your persistence in just recreating it anyway has become a bit disruptive. Hence the block on page creation. If/when this person becomes notable, no doubt the protection can be lifted and an article can be made. Until then, please feel free to edit any of the other 6.8 million Wikipedia articles. All the best. -- Euryalus (talk) 08:09, 14 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A terrible day for Wikipedia's credibility[edit]

The choice to remove the page on "minor-attracted person" has shown Wikipedia is not neutral as it claims and listens to baseless hysterics over peer-reviewed sources and professional input. It shows Wikipedia has a bias and only accepts things that they agree with and will purge anything that goes against their beliefs. Wikipedia has lost all integrity as an encyclopedia and should not be used if someone is seeking factual information. Shugunou (talk) 22:27, 18 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi. The choice to remove the page on "minor-attracted person" was the result of a community discussion open to everyone, which generated this consensus outcome:
  • There was community consensus that this is a relatively fringe term which might justify a mention in related articles but does not justify a separate article separate from other terms and encyclopedic content related to the same concept. The AfD and related discussions (including the recent ANI thread) indicate some relevance to this sentence from WP:CHILDPRO: expressing the view that inappropriate relationships are not harmful to children. However WP:CFORK, WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE were also relevant to this AfD.
With respect, I disagree that this commentary represents "baseless hysterics" or was about purging dissenting views. It was about the community as a whole considering a wide range of views about this article, testing those views against policy, and coming to a collective decision. The outcome was obviously not what you would have preferred, but like it or not Wikipedia is governed by policy and consensus and in this case both were against you.
Unrelatedly: as this probably isn't your first account, it would be courteous of you to let me know who I am actually responding to. All the best. -- Euryalus (talk) 00:22, 19 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You know very well that isn't true. I have read the entire discussion and all the arguments in favor of deleting it were either debunked earlier or by people who never read the page in the first place while most of the people arguing in favor of it had strong arguments backed by actual research. The people who wanted it deleted used recycled arguments from social media made up by people who want to murder people for having a paraphilia they did not choose to have regardless of if the person acts on it or not. Those arguments do not stand up to even the smallest bit of scrutiny. Meanwhile, the people arguing in favor of it are using arguments supported by psychologists, psychiatrists, and specialists. And if you try to claim this was democratic, that would be a lie too. Looking at it, it is clear the majority are in favor of either keeping it, merging it, or making it redirect to another page, and even a lot of the people in favor of deleting it didn't ask for it to be salted. Shugunou (talk) 01:10, 19 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, thanks again for your opinion. If you feel the close was incorrect you're free to lodge a request at WP:DRV. -- Euryalus (talk) 02:49, 19 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In passing it seems very likely you are a specific indefinitely blocked editor. If so it's vastly unlikely anyone will take your objections seriously unless/until you are successful in getting your main account unblocked. -- Euryalus (talk) 05:41, 16 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

ANI report[edit]

Hi, I've started a thread at ANI regarding a WP:LTA that you've previously blocked.

Cheers, 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 16:16, 23 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wikiproject Military history coordinator election nominations open[edit]

Nominations for the upcoming project coordinator election have opened. A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next coordination year. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. More information on being a coordinator is available here. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 UTC on 14 September! Voting will commence on 15 September. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the current coord team. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:05, 2 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Hi, Euryalus. Re your blocking of Chandalab, was I right to have left them a templated message on their talk page about their username or should I have reported it at UAA? Given that the information at the top of the UAA page says it is for 'blatant' and 'serious' violations, I didn't feel it appropriate in this instance - the username wasn't promoting an organisation - as it was a biography I'd tagged it as COI. Some guidance would be appreciated. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 14:46, 22 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Curb Safe Charmer: Thanks for the message. Either would have been fine - and apologies I must have overlooked your message to them. Had I seen it I'd likely have left them unblocked at least until they responded to you or made other unrelated edits. The problem with the username is not so much promotion as implied shared use. I don't think they're acting in any particular bad faith, though there's issues of notability and COI as well as the username. But as you noted in your message they'll need a rename before going any further. -- Euryalus (talk) 15:05, 22 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ah, ok, that's useful to know and reassuring. Re notability, I don't think that's an issue given he has an h-index of 51, but certainly COI. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 15:19, 22 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


I see the user Shugunou posted a comment here attacking you because wiki removed the "MAPs" article. You felt they were a sock. They left another comment on this talk page which makes me think so too. Unusual comment ("mobile network" etc) for a first time editor, no? Zenomonoz (talk) 10:41, 26 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, very unusual. Likely a sock and certainly WP:NOTHERE. -- Euryalus (talk) 06:29, 1 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:WikiProject Ports[edit]

Template:WikiProject Ports has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Gonnym (talk) 09:57, 2 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I hard blocked killer aryan[edit]

I hard blocked that as a clear reference to racist murder. Secretlondon (talk) 07:56, 8 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Fine by me. There are of course other uses of the word "Aryan" including as an Iranian and Indian first name, and their only edit doesn't point one way or the other re what they meant by it. Hence the first step of a talkpage message. But your mileage may vary, as the young people used to say. -- Euryalus (talk) 09:23, 8 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

More socks[edit]

Hi, I saw where you blocked User:, one of many socks plaguing a specific series of pages. Here are two more from the same user: User: and User: Would you be able to do the same for these? Thanks for your time. TNstingray (talk) 12:59, 8 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@TNstingray:checkY, one by me and one by K6ka. Shorter block times than the earlier account as there is less evidence of long-term use of this IP by this user. Let me know if there's more, and sorry for the delayed response (timezone challenges). -- Euryalus (talk) 23:08, 8 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Happy Adminship[edit]

Happy Adminship from the Birthday Committee

Wishing Euryalus a very happy adminship anniversary on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee!

-- Ezra Cricket (talk) 19:01, 12 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You may wish to revoke TPA. Cahk (talk) 09:14, 18 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks done. -- Euryalus (talk) 10:11, 18 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message[edit]

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. 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 2023 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) 00:27, 28 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've blocked an account you thought should be left to prove themselves[edit]

So, Euryalus, you think it'll be OK as long as BallSniffer edits constructively? I disagree. In deference to your opinion, however, I've merely softblocked, against my own conviction that the user will not become a useful contributor. (Aren't you glad I didn't use the account name to adorn your ToC, and for the edit summary?) Bishonen | tålk 10:02, 29 November 2023 (UTC).Reply[reply]

Hi Bishonen! I was perhaps a little milquetoast (what, again? Do I never learn?) Mind you they had never edited, and WP:UAAI notes not to waste time dealing with accounts that may never be used. Still, I have no expectation they'll be a useful contributor so my absence of a block is a "meh" rather than sunny optimism. And yes, thank you for maintaining the sanctity of the TOC. I only archive this page once a year, so "ballsniffer" would be staring me in the face for weeks. :) -- Euryalus (talk) 11:17, 29 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yup. Would've looked good in your page history, too. Hmm, maybe I should have let the evil twin take care of notifying you. She's not as soft as Bishonen. Bishonen | tålk 13:07, 29 November 2023 (UTC).Reply[reply]

Editor experience invitation[edit]

Hi Euryalus :) I'm looking for people to interview here. Feel free to pass if you're not interested. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 10:27, 2 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Long Korean news usernames[edit]

You might wanna speedy delete their userpages per G12, it's most certainly copyvio. LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 06:53, 6 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes I'll get there, am doing this from an iPhone so is a little slow. :) -- Euryalus (talk) 06:55, 6 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – December 2023[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (November 2023).

Administrator changes

renamed BeeblebroxJust Step Sideways

CheckUser changes


Oversight changes


Guideline and policy news


  • Following a motion, the Extended Confirmed Restriction has been amended, removing the allowance for non-extended-confirmed editors to post constructive comments on the "Talk:" namespace. Now, non-extended-confirmed editors may use the "Talk:" namespace solely to make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided that their actions are not disruptive.
  • The Arbitration Committee has announced a call for Checkusers and Oversighters, stating that it will currently be accepting applications for CheckUser and/or Oversight permissions at any point in the year.
  • Eligible users are invited to vote on candidates for the Arbitration Committee until 23:59 December 11, 2023 (UTC). Candidate statements can be seen here.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:53, 8 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]