User talk:Euphonie

Français – English – Italiano – Deutsch – Español

Re: Parochial patronages in French Algeria
Hi Euphonie,

Thanks for contacting me regarding this topic, but I am afraid I will not be helpful in this as I cannot translate from French to Arabic, especially the topic is not general and it will require enough background about the subject.

-- Haytham Abulela  09:41, 30 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Now things are clear. Give me a chance to look at it and give you a final answer.


 * -- Haytham Abulela  16:22, 31 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi,
 * I have checked the article and I think I will not be able to translate it because I could not find specialised dictionaries required for this translation.
 * -- Haytham Abulela  12:06, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

élections aux E.-U.
J'ai voté sur contre le supression, suivi ton message à Talk:United States presidential election, 2016. Bonne chance! - Nbpolitico (talk) 18:19, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Merci, Nbpolitico ! Meilleures pensées ! Cordialement ! euphonie 19:54, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Services Institute of Medical Sciences
Dear Euphonie!

Thanks for your concern and help. How is it possible to disagree? Please do so, thank you very much. -- SMS Let's talk   18:04, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

May 2013
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=557064186 your edit] to Marcel Torrenté may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry, just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20-%20&section=new my operator's talk page].

Translations
Euphonie: I'm disturbed that you have made another translation and added it to WP:Pages needing translation into English. It's good that you recognise that your translations need further work, but you do not appear to have taken account of the criticism of your formatting made at the deletion discussion for Marcel Torrenté - your use of note sections to explain translation decisions, for example, is unnecessarily cumbersome for an encyclopedia entry - nor of the fundamental issue that you are adding considerable work to an already large backlog. We're all volunteers here; have you considered that it would be a better use of everybody's time, including yours, if you were to instead create short stubs, or even paragraphs in existing articles, on these healers, rather than translating entire lengthy articles that will need considerable reworking? (As you no doubt know, the rhetorical and organisational principles of article writing are appreciably different between English and French. Also the degree of coverage expected by the reader will often differ depending on the remoteness of the topic.) You asked a reasonable question at ANI, whether a translation of an article is acceptable when an article has been previously deleted at that title, but the answer to that question was in fact already there in the deletion notice that you saw when you first attempted to create the page: there is no problem with a new article that meets our standards, but there is with a re-creation of the same article (with the same text). However, that is an entirely different issue from whether it is appropriate to create a long article that is a poor translation (and does not clearly demonstrate notability) and then expect others to clean it up for you. Please stop doing this. It amounts to attempting to force people to drop what they are doing and clean up your articles. Instead, write simply in your own words and add sufficient references from the start so that it is clear the topic is worthy of an article. Others will then be happy to expand and otherwise rewrite the article in time. And you can probably do more articles in the same amount of time that way, in addition to gathering a lot more goodwill. Yngvadottir (talk) 17:19, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Hello, Yngvadottir!
 * Thank you for your message!
 * Please kindly note that as what might concern the initial Marcel Torrenté article which seems to have been formerly published in English — by someone else — before being promptly deleted by speedy deletion, it is of an utmost importance to point out that it was not written by me. The alleged reason which, at the time, was mentioned through the diff comment was: vandalism. Furthermore, I still do not know what the initial content was. Consecutively, it appears as being implicit that it was obviously not the same text (how would it be possible?). That’s why, in order to avoid any possible misunderstanding, I had —first of all— an initial contact with the administrative board, in order to know whether this page could be created or not under such unexpected circumstances, as shown →‎ ‎ here.
 * This said, as far as I managed to understand the specificities and intrinsic peculiarities, the forthcoming deletion of Torrenté article might be mainly due to the lack of real official, substantial and pragmatic notability which seems to relate to this character. I can fairly well understand this type of restrictive notion. No problem about this! I am also aware that the preliminary textual sample in English, about Torrenté, was not as convincing as what it should be, above all at the beginning, given that the translation was (and still is) a bit too “literal”. That’s why I subsequently spent much of my time in trying to improve its content, in order to make it more “digestible”. Of course, most of the time, I do not translate “to” but “from” English or other languages. Moreover, I often work as a proofreader in French. This led me to correct many texts which, originally, were supposedly “irrecoverable”. As a matter of fact, they were requiring a deep and scrupulous proofreading. I have always been pleased and honored to perform this task, notwithstanding the difficulty of the challenge.
 * About Dr. Francesco Racanelli, I genuinely thought that the notability of this person would definitely not be as disputable as the situation which refers to Torrenté. Actually, Racanelli wrote a considerable amount of books and he published several articles in various medical journals. In addition, this doctor was (and still is) rather well-known in his country and also elsewhere, so far for other specific reasons which are duly mentioned in the corpus of the article. Last but not least, before publishing this new translation, I had also contacted the administrative board to let them know about this project. My intention was based on the hope of getting sort of “carte blanche” about the option which would have consisted in publishing a forthcoming translation on en.wp = would the said option be conceivable or not? You are kindly invited to read this informal conversation →‎ here.
 * Furthermore, you can be rest assured that your remarks are taken into high consideration. That’s why, if I could quite understand the meaning of some reluctance about Torrenté’s article, I must confess that I was not expecting such an embarrassed reaction about this new translation which, this time, is devoted to Francesco Racanelli, given that, since then, I have spent more time in trying to adjust the whole content before issuing it online: I was hoping that other contributors would be delighted to improve the preliminary sample as soon as it would be publicly available, considering that it is often what I myself do for other contributors on other foreign wp. In addition, a friend of mine, who is of English mother tongue, has read the article, before it went out on en.wp, and told me that the whole ensemble was more or less (grammatically and “syntactically” speaking) relatively “correct” and “acceptable”, though the provisional result might still necessitate some additional adjustment here and there in such a way to transmute some specific semantic units via new formulations which might reveal themselves as being a little more consistent and compatible with the usual norm.
 * That’s why I feel deeply sorry to read that, contrary to my initial hopes, this very new article, relating to a famous personality in Italy (i.e. as far as I know, the content of this article should not be faced to a lack of notability, according to the reasons which were explained above) seems to have “disturbed” you. It was assuredly not my intention. My only intention was —and still is— to please others.
 * So, what could we do to fix this issue?
 * Hope to hear from you soon!
 * Take care and all the best!
 * Avec mes hommages vertueusement adressés au fan de Richard Wagner que tu sembles incarner aux yeux de l'Éternel. À cet effet, je te dédie cette magistrale interprétation du → 'Liebestod' émanant de l’admirable gosier offert en oblation phonatoire par l’inoubliable Birgit Nilsson.
 * WikiLove and kindest regards!
 * euphonie
 * 23:06, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 23:06, 29 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the thought and the implied compliment to my taste :-) However, I think you are still missing the important point, which is that your translations are poor and that is making it hard for the English-speaking reader to appreciate the topics' notability. As an experienced translator, you must know that it is inadvisable to translate for publication into a language of which one does not have a near-native level of mastery; and Wikipedia is a form of publication. As an experienced translator, you must also know that different audiences require different rhetorical strategies, and I am presuming that you are also aware of the differences in organisation of essays, learned papers, and other forms of expository prose between French and English? I am glad you consulted with an expert friend before submitting your second translated article, and it is indeed in better English. However, it still requires considerable clean-up and thus adds to the very lengthy backlog at Pages Needing Translation ... and is at risk of being further templated or insensitively stubbed. Or indeed nominated for deletion like the first article. Please, for your next effort, instead write a very short article in simple English, link it to the French article, and leave it to be expanded by others. That is far more likely to achieve what you want - for others to make it into a detailed and good article - will take you less time, and if the short article clearly states why the person is notable and has two or three good references, it is much more likely to avoid ugly templates and nomination for deletion. For many topics on French Wikipedia (and other foreign-language Wikipedias), in fact, the best form of publication on English Wikipedia is not a paragraph-by-paragraph translation, because the readers' needs and expectations are different. I hope this makes it clearer? Yngvadottir (talk) 15:08, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Hello, Yngvadottir! Thank you for your message! Following your judicious advices, several additional hours were devoted to this translation in order to improve its former content. Could you please have a → look at it? What do you think about the result? Of course, feel free to update the whole content according to any local idiomatic and/or rhetorical specificity which might be duly required! Additionally, here are two other translations from → Finnish language to → French and → Italian. Thank you again for your interesting remarks which have greatly contributed to what I hope can be now considered as a substantial improvement. Kindest regards! — euphonie 07:40, 07:50, 18:06, 18:52, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Hello, Yngvadottir! Thank you for your message! Following your judicious advices, several additional hours were devoted to this translation in order to improve its former content. Could you please have a → look at it? What do you think about the result? Of course, feel free to update the whole content according to any local idiomatic and/or rhetorical specificity which might be duly required! Additionally, here are two other translations from → Finnish language to → French and → Italian. Thank you again for your interesting remarks which have greatly contributed to what I hope can be now considered as a substantial improvement. Kindest regards! — euphonie 07:40, 07:50, 18:06, 18:52, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of Francesco Racanelli for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Francesco Racanelli is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Francesco Racanelli until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

Hi, Euphonie! As you may have noticed, I've spent a bit of time today trying to tidy up this article and bring it into line with English Wikipedia style and requirements. But the more I look at it the more it seems that the sources are weak at best, and that the poor man is really never mentioned by anyone who could be called reliable. So, in order to get some other opinions on his notability I've nominated the article for deletion. I'm sorry about that, even if, as I see from reading above, this may not come as a total surprise to you. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 18:19, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi again! First, I'd like to echo the excellent advice above: "Please, for your next effort, instead write a very short article in simple English, link it to the French article, and leave it to be expanded by others." That approach would be so much more likely to achieve a useful result, and would probably save a lot of time all round. It took me a surprising amount of time to untangle some of your deeply nested references and footnotes; a clear and simple approach would be much preferable. In particular, I'd ask you to avoid using  to create references; that is really hardly ever necessary.
 * Now, about those references: have you actually looked at all of them? I ask because several of the sources you added to the article do not mention Racanelli at all, or only in the most marginal way. I've deleted the further reading links, which were:
 * The first two are book reviews which do not mention Racanelli at all; the third is an account of a project on alternative medicine in the University of Perugia. Racanelli is named because one undergraduate wrote a thesis on him. There is no further reading whatsoever in those links. That makes me anxious; are the other references in the article equally spurious? At the moment they are (apart from the ICCU authority which I added):
 * The Ancient Massage Foundation
 * (actually an essay on scribd)
 * Of those, the first is obviously not reliable - just a bit of stuff on the web, without source or attribution; the third is apparently unreliable, as it is an essay on scribd, without references, source or date of publication, or anything to confirm that it was in fact published by Arianna Editrice (which exists, but is unlikely to be regarded as a reliable publishing house). That leaves Péneau: please tell me, what exactly does Péneau say about Racanelli on page 180 of the book? It would be helpful if you would quote it here, word-for-word (it is OK to do that as long as the quote is attributed to the source, the Péneau book). Thanks, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 12:03, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi, Justlettersandnumbers!
 * Thank you for your concern, your messages and your additional contributions to this “unconventional article”. Thank you also for having found a more reliable semantic unit which corresponds to the basic initial concept of medicina bioradiante. I understand your remark saying that the use of  should preferably be avoided.
 * This said, here are the other points!
 * As mentioned here, “Italian journals are notoriously underdigitized so references to someone who published mostly in the 50s are hard to come by”. While the main protagonist relating to this article was at the time (i.e. from the 30s to the 70s) the subject of several articles which were published in national Italian newspapers (mainly when he had to face judicial harassment, then later, when he became the subject of several scientific studies made by a panel of medical experts under the auspices of a “zetetic” team), it seems to be fairly difficult to find any trace on those former written reports via the internet, given that most of those “old” writings have probably not been digitally archived and, consecutively, they do not seem to be available (yet). I can only certify that I saw several copies of them, a few years ago, thanks to an old woman who was a former patient of this doctor; she had compiled and collected most of those articles. Furthermore, she had recorded several lectures of him on cassettes (most of them that she made me hear were in French and/or Italian language); she then typed them on folders (the two quotations here were a translated transcription of part of those recorded cassettes). I am fully aware that the above is definitely quite a complex challenge to deal with. Unfortunately, I do not have any copy of those old newspapers, so I cannot even quote their content nor even add a precise date, title and so on. On top of it, you are utterly right to be anxious about the Péneau source as it does “not” directly mention Racanelli but is only an additional explanation about the “energetic concept” compared to other “similar” theories.
 * The link for Lamendola relating to Arianna Editrice is here. Nevertheless, while Lamendola has published several books, I also cannot find any trace of this specific “printed” article anywhere.
 * Considering the current lack of utterly reliable sources (reliable sources would exist… but it seems to be currently impossible to find them online), could we (maybe) add this article which mentions Racanelli among others similar concepts that are supposedly linked to “bio-radiant energy”.
 * The comment (in Italian) says:
 * Questa sostanza presente in tutto l’universo, è l’energia vitale, chiamata da Gesù Cristo luce, da Ippocrate forza risanatrice della natura, dagli indiani prona, dai cinesi ai, dai giapponesi Jci, dai tibetani lung, da Wilhem Reich argone, da Rudolph Steiner forza plasmatrice eterica, da Sigmund Freud libido, da Francesco Racanelli “energia bioradiante“.
 * In English:
 * This substance, present throughout the universe, is the life force, referred to as light by Jesus Christ, as the healing power of nature by Hippocrates, as prāṇa by the Indians, as qì by the Chinese, as ki by the Japanese, as lung by the Tibetans, as orgone by Wilhem Reich, as the etheric force by Thomas Edison, Helena Blavatsky and Rudolf Steiner, as libido by Sigmund Freud and as “bio-radiant energy” by Francesco Racanelli.
 * As you see, the Péneau source is mainly an additional information which aims to compare “bio-radiance” with the “etheric force” (anthroposophic theory) as pointed out by Rudolf Steiner, Helena Blavatsky, Annie Besant, Paul-Clément Jagot, Franz Anton Mesmer and other “esoteric” personalities.
 * So, what should we do? Shall we delete the current content and simply wait that, one day, the “hidden” journalistic sources would (hopefully) become publicly available on the internet (should they ever be digitized ...)?
 * Like you, I have tried to find some other more reliable sources, but I did not succeed in this task. This is mainly why a few templates like  were added, hoping that someone would maybe have a printed copy of those old Italian newspapers somewhere; this would then allow to insert the required complementary (and still missing) references at the appropriate place.
 * By the way, would this source be suitable? If so, where could we add it?
 * Kindest regards!
 * euphonie 15:36, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks for your replies. As forecast by Yngvadottir above, this is turning into a major drain on time that could, to be honest, be much more usefully spent elsewhere. Thank you for confirming that Péneau does not mention Racanelli; I'll go ahead and remove that source as irrelevant. Unfortunately that means that no source that could even with the most generous interpretation possible be regarded as reliable says anything about him other than the basic facts given by the ICCU authority card. As for the other sources you mention above: the architecture essay (Calabrese) is just that; it has no standing or authority as a source. That it happens to mention a lot of different concepts and say that they are all the same is (a) ridiculous and (b) irrelevant. The APA link is to the abstract of an article by Racanelli published in 1969; it doesn't lead to the article itself. All it shows is that he wrote an article. No-one, least of all me, is disputing that he wrote some books and articles. I had already looked at publications by Lamendola on the Arianna website. I see nothing to suggest that either of them is in any way reliable, and nothing to suggest that the article that mentions Racanelli was ever published other than on this crank site. And no, somebody's unpublished transcriptions of a cassette tape are not regarded as a reliable source on Wikipedia either.
 * So what to do? I see two possibilities:
 * ask for the article to be deleted; I've already proposed that in order to see what others think of it, as the subject is unfortunately almost completely non-notable. Or
 * reduce the current article to the bare facts of his life (it'd make a sentence or two) and his publications (which seem still to contain a lot of duplication); to be honest, the only reason I haven't already done that is out of respect for the amount of work you've obviously put into this. However, I see that you have also published it elsewhere, so perhaps that work is not entirely wasted?
 * I'm not sure which of those you mean when you write "Shall we delete the current content and simply wait?".
 * I'm sorry about all this. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 18:39, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi, Justlettersandnumbers!
 * Thank you for your prompt reply! Don’t be sorry! I appreciate your honesty and the fact that you have kindly explained this issue with frankness, utter respect and courtesy. As written above, the main problem is relating to a crucial lack of accessible journalistic sources online, despite the fact that the said sources do exist somewhere; unfortunately, they cannot be found online. This is mainly due to the fact that, at the time (in the 50s), the Internet did not exist yet. This means that, all along those years, most Italian newspapers which have published an article about this doctor cannot be found under a digitized form and, consecutively, none of them can currently be read online. Of course, I am fully aware that additional pragmatic and reliable references would be urgently required to make the whole base a bit more consistent. By the way, I just found two additional secondary sources. One of them can confirm the fact that he was a “legum doctor” (doctor of law) given that his first vocation (before he discovered his “bio-radiant” gift) was to be a lawyer; that’s why he managed to defend himself during the five or six court trials he had to endure. On the other hand, he studied “traditional medicine” (he was a doctor of medicine and a doctor of surgery) only to get sort of “medical legitimacy” in order to be “legally” allowed to practise his “bio-radiance” without being constantly harassed and persecuted by the medical authorities. Thank you again for your concern and your advices. Take care and all the best! Kindest regards! — euphonie 21:10, 22 June 2013 (UTC)  — euphonie 21:02, 21:10, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
 * So what to do? I see two possibilities:
 * ask for the article to be deleted; I've already proposed that in order to see what others think of it, as the subject is unfortunately almost completely non-notable. Or
 * reduce the current article to the bare facts of his life (it'd make a sentence or two) and his publications (which seem still to contain a lot of duplication); to be honest, the only reason I haven't already done that is out of respect for the amount of work you've obviously put into this. However, I see that you have also published it elsewhere, so perhaps that work is not entirely wasted?
 * I'm not sure which of those you mean when you write "Shall we delete the current content and simply wait?".
 * I'm sorry about all this. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 18:39, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi, Justlettersandnumbers!
 * Thank you for your prompt reply! Don’t be sorry! I appreciate your honesty and the fact that you have kindly explained this issue with frankness, utter respect and courtesy. As written above, the main problem is relating to a crucial lack of accessible journalistic sources online, despite the fact that the said sources do exist somewhere; unfortunately, they cannot be found online. This is mainly due to the fact that, at the time (in the 50s), the Internet did not exist yet. This means that, all along those years, most Italian newspapers which have published an article about this doctor cannot be found under a digitized form and, consecutively, none of them can currently be read online. Of course, I am fully aware that additional pragmatic and reliable references would be urgently required to make the whole base a bit more consistent. By the way, I just found two additional secondary sources. One of them can confirm the fact that he was a “legum doctor” (doctor of law) given that his first vocation (before he discovered his “bio-radiant” gift) was to be a lawyer; that’s why he managed to defend himself during the five or six court trials he had to endure. On the other hand, he studied “traditional medicine” (he was a doctor of medicine and a doctor of surgery) only to get sort of “medical legitimacy” in order to be “legally” allowed to practise his “bio-radiance” without being constantly harassed and persecuted by the medical authorities. Thank you again for your concern and your advices. Take care and all the best! Kindest regards! — euphonie 21:10, 22 June 2013 (UTC)  — euphonie 21:02, 21:10, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your prompt reply! Don’t be sorry! I appreciate your honesty and the fact that you have kindly explained this issue with frankness, utter respect and courtesy. As written above, the main problem is relating to a crucial lack of accessible journalistic sources online, despite the fact that the said sources do exist somewhere; unfortunately, they cannot be found online. This is mainly due to the fact that, at the time (in the 50s), the Internet did not exist yet. This means that, all along those years, most Italian newspapers which have published an article about this doctor cannot be found under a digitized form and, consecutively, none of them can currently be read online. Of course, I am fully aware that additional pragmatic and reliable references would be urgently required to make the whole base a bit more consistent. By the way, I just found two additional secondary sources. One of them can confirm the fact that he was a “legum doctor” (doctor of law) given that his first vocation (before he discovered his “bio-radiant” gift) was to be a lawyer; that’s why he managed to defend himself during the five or six court trials he had to endure. On the other hand, he studied “traditional medicine” (he was a doctor of medicine and a doctor of surgery) only to get sort of “medical legitimacy” in order to be “legally” allowed to practise his “bio-radiance” without being constantly harassed and persecuted by the medical authorities. Thank you again for your concern and your advices. Take care and all the best! Kindest regards! — euphonie 21:10, 22 June 2013 (UTC)  — euphonie 21:02, 21:10, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

File:Issnoe.png
Hi, I'm RonBot, a script that checks new non-free file uploads. I have found that the subject image that you recently uploaded was more than 5% in excess of the Non-free content guideline size of 100,000 pixels. I have tagged the image for a standard reduction, which (for jpg/gif/png/svg files) normally happens within a day. Please check the reduced image, and make sure that the image is not excessively corrupted. Other files will be added to Category:Wikipedia non-free file size reduction requests for manual processing. There is a full seven-day period before the original oversized image will be hidden; during that time you might want to consider editing the original image yourself (perhaps an initial crop to allow a smaller reduction or none at all). A formula for calculation the desired size can be found at WP:Image resolution, along with instructions on how to tag the image in the rare cases that it requires an oversized image (typically about 0.2% of non-free uploads are tagged as necessarily oversized). Please contact the bot owner if you have any questions, or you can ask them at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. See User:RonBot for info on how to not get these messages. RonBot (talk) 18:10, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Notice
Alexbrn (talk) 06:11, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Johann Lahodny


The article Johann Lahodny has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "Not notable by WP:GNG or WP:NPROF"

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. RexxS (talk) 16:16, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

MEDRS
All medical content on Wikipedia is subject to the sourcing guidelines at WP:MEDRS. At Johann Lahodny, you have used primary sources to imply far more than is due for fringe treatments and pseudoscientific nonsense such as "bioresonance, Vitalfeld, normobar oxygen therapy, and tachyonic field therapy". Please study MEDRS carefully and try to understand the quality of sourcing required for medical content. Furthermore you have placed a detailed description of an experimental study in a biography. I'm sure you intended that to indicate the importance of that study to Lahodny's work, but it is thoroughly undue for a biography. If certain experiments have been significant to Lahodny's biography, then a good quality secondary source will have made that point and you can cite the source. In the absence of any such source, the content is inappropriate for the article. --RexxS (talk) 21:52, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

July 2020
You continued posting of pro-fringe arguments at WT:MED, and failure to grasp the requirements of MEDRS has consumed too much of other editors' time. I would like to think that you could understand by now the effect of sealioning on that talk page and take a break from it. Please take this as a serious warning because it is now crossing into tendentious editing and is likely to attract sanctions. --RexxS (talk) 16:02, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Hello RexxS,
 * Chance or synchronicity according to what Carl Gustav Jung might potentially hypothesize, I was—coincidentally—writing → my final conclusion at this very precise simultaneous same moment.
 * It’s how great minds meet. That fate does things well.
 * Blessings and wikilove. Ahiṃsā
 * Sincerely, — Euphonie (talk) 17:20, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Sincerely, — Euphonie (talk) 17:20, 18 July 2020 (UTC)