User talk:Euryalus

Howdi Gaudi

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)

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)

Full protection at 2023 Covenant School shooting

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)

@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)

No worries, real life has been a distraction for me lately as well. It happens to us all. Appreciate the work you do! —Locke Cole • t • c 05:10, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

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

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

Twitter Inc. and the joke that wouldn't die

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)

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

A Topic ban appeal in which you were involved

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)

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

More vandalism

User:205.173.168.2, whom you previously blocked, is continuing to vandalize multiple articles. Would you please revisit this? -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:16, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

 Done -- Euryalus (talk) 23:12, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

Precious

Nine years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:08, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

@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)

ANI thread that may be of interest

Given your attention to some of the user's past edits. [3]. Thanks, 76.119.253.82 (talk) 18:33, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

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)

112.207.128.0/17

Sorry, I was about to fix that, but you blocked already. I looks like all the vandalism is actually coming from 112.207.192.0/19. The other parts of the 17, 112.207.128.0/18, and 112.207.224.0/19, 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)

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)

Special:Contributions/122.52.32.0/20

Thanks for blocking this range. 172.56.217.134 (talk) 02:14, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

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

[[User:CarolDonato0582}]]

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

Request

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)

@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)

Thanks. Maliner (talk) 10:46, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Recent close

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 archive.today). 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

In answer to the first question, no I don't think it is. -- Euryalus (talk) 22:25, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

Salting

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)

 Done -- Euryalus (talk) 09:59, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

Protection

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)

A dove

Aemanops8135 has given you a dove! Doves promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day happier. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a dove, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past (this fits perfectly) or a good friend. Cheers!

---

Spread the peace of doves by adding {{subst:Peace dove}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message!

Thanks! -- Euryalus (talk) 15:09, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

You've got mail!

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 at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contribs)} 02:56, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

Another account to check

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)

Thanks, missed that one but Ingenuity got it. -- Euryalus (talk) 13:51, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

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)