User talk:Maurice Magnus

At least in British English, which is what the article is using (I've had to correct you on that already) "London's National Gallery" is horrible journalese, and redundant, as only London has a plain "National Gallery" (NG) - DC has the NGA. Johnbod (talk) 03:41, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

To me, as an American, "London's National Gallery" sounds fine, but, in deference to you, in the list of poesie at Titian, I just changed

• The Death of Actaeon, now in London's National Gallery, begun in 1559 but worked on for many years and never completed or delivered^[1] to
• The Death of Actaeon, now in the National Gallery in London, begun in 1559 but worked on for many years and never completed or delivered^[2]

Yesterday, I clicked on User talk:Johnbod and posted a comment and it appeared on User talk:Justlettersandnumbers. Justlettersand numbers replied. Are you and he or she the same person? I don't need to know, actually; it just seems strange. Maurice Magnus (talk) 10:22, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

Your addition of July 5th! to Frederick Douglas is WP:TOOSOON. The only citation was Mailchimp, which is hardly a reliable source. Neither the playwright, Ken Green, nor the musical director, Eve Wolf, have Wikipedia articles, so therefore we can assume that they, as well as the play, are not notable. Peaceray (talk) 20:08, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Whatever you celebrate at this time of year, whether it's Christmas or some other festival, I hope you and those close to you have a happy, restful time! Have fun, Donner60 (talk) 00:16, 23 December 2022 (UTC)}}

Donner60 (talk) 00:32, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Victorine Meurent, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ross King.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:02, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Just fyi, I have taken this on for Wikipedia:The Core Contest, so will be rewriting it, probably completely, over the next couple of months, so any changes made now are probably not going to be in the eventual version, Best Johnbod (talk) 16:59, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

Short answer to your question is as follows. Copyvio is in fact copyright violation. The edits belonged to User:Billy Hathorn, who was banned after violating just about everything (copyright violations being the prime thing). Most of the content added has been proven to either be a copyright issue, a POV issue, trivial content, or something along those lines, with the issues being far-reaching enough that we have to automatically assume that any content is bad (checking every source to cross examine every edit he did is impossible, unfortunately). If you're sure the material's clean then you could restore it (one of the pieces I removed was partially an attributed quote which is probably fine to restore), though you're technically taking responsibility for that material. In the end my removal of the material was a combination of both reasons; if the issues weren't so bad to have required a ban I would've either actively looked for the source or left it. Wizardman 16:32, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

Thanks Maurice Magnus (talk) 16:57, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

There's two reasons, the one I had when I made the remark, and the one I'm about to put as #2. But I already wrote up my bit for #1, so here it is:

1. The term "African American" is used because people of African American descent cannot trace their lineage any better than "Africa", because they are descended from slaves. That's the primary reason for why the usage is so much politically, culturally, and even morally different than "White American" or "European American". So to say that they "enslaved African Americans" is to use ... okay, sure, the term existed back then, but it's unlikely it had the same meaning and connotation as it does today. And if it did, ... it's still kind of cart-chasing-horse. IMO it's improper to say that "they enslaved African Americans" because people are African American because of slavery. Had slavery not happened, the term "African American" would not have happened, so it's improper to say that they enslaved them.
2. But, I just realized, they literally weren't American. Slaves did not have automatic citizenship until the 14th amendment, and Dred Scott had held [simplified] that slaves weren't citizens. So to call them "African Americans" appears outright incorrect. By the legal standards in play at the time, they were not American, except in the generic "someone in the western hemisphere," which I'm assuming is not what is intended. --Golbez (talk) 02:11, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Hello Maurice Magnus! Your additions to Clarence Thomas have been removed in whole or in part, as they appear to have added copyrighted content without evidence that the source material is in the public domain or has been released by its owner or legal agent under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license. (To request such a release, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission.) While we appreciate your contributions to Wikipedia, there are certain things you must keep in mind about using information from sources to avoid copyright and plagiarism issues.

• You can only copy/translate a small amount of a source, and you must mark what you take as a direct quotation with double quotation marks (") and cite the source using an inline citation. You can read about this at Wikipedia:Non-free content in the sections on "text". See also Help:Referencing for beginners, for how to cite sources here.
• Aside from limited quotation, you must put all information in your own words and structure, in proper paraphrase. Following the source's words too closely can create copyright problems, so it is not permitted here; see Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. Even when using your own words, you are still, however, asked to cite your sources to verify the information and to demonstrate that the content is not original research.
• We have strict guidelines on the usage of copyrighted images. Fair use images must meet all ten of the non-free content criteria in order to be used in articles, or they will be deleted. To be used on Wikipedia, all other images must be made available under a free and open copyright license that allows commercial and derivative reuse.
• If you own the copyright to the source you want to copy or are a legally designated agent, you may be able to license that text so that we can publish it here. Understand, though, that unlike many other sites, where a person can license their content for use there and retain non-free ownership, that is not possible at Wikipedia. Rather, the release of content must be irrevocable, to the world, into either the public domain (PD) or under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license. Please see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials.
• Also note that Wikipedia articles may not be copied or translated without attribution. If you want to copy or translate from another Wikipedia project or article, you must follow the copyright attribution steps described at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. See also Help:Translation#License requirements.

It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices, as policy requires that people who persistently do not must be blocked from editing. If you have any questions about this, please ask them here on this page, or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. General Ization ^Talk 01:31, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

I posted a comment on the Spinoza talk page, which you might be interested in. Amuseclio (talk) 23:37, 12 September 2023 (UTC)Amuseclio

Thanks for letting me know. I will not have access to my philosophy books until October, so I will not pursue this now. But I just googled and saw that Britannica says, "Benedict de Spinoza, Hebrew forename Baruch, Latin forename Benedictus, Portuguese Bento de Espinosa." I wouldn't oppose changing it to "Benedictus de Spinoza," but I don't think that it's necessary, because the opening sentence already says that he's mostly known under the name "Benedictus de Spinoza." It doesn't mention "Bento," however, so maybe that should be worked in. They're all the same name, so I'm not sure that it's important. I suspect (without evidence) that his parents, being Jewish, named him "Baruch," and that he used the Latin or the Portuguese as occasions warranted. Maurice Magnus (talk) 23:58, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Your edit to Louisa May Alcott has been removed in whole or in part, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously, and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing. See Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources for more information. You can't just dodge copyright restrictions by adding quotation marks. You need to rewrite the content whenever possible, which it was here. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 18:38, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

on Abraham Lincoln with this edit and this edit? Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 13:58, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Shearonink (talk The first one has already been undone by another editor. See Wikipedia:Teahouse - Wikipedia. The second one was merely adding a Wikilink. Was there something wrong with that? I won't object to any edits you choose to make. Maurice Magnus (talk) 14:03, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

I was curious about the *why* of your changes, I know you had a reason, it's just that your changes took away the "archived from" and other useful information. Was it because the previous citation, the old version of the cite web, didn't Wikilink Thomas Owens Mackubin's name to his WP article? Looks like this latest one (with the linkage you added) took care of that missing info. Shearonink (talk) 14:22, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Shearonink (talk) I wanted to be able to get rid of the statement "Error: No valid link was found at the end of line 6." As I explained at the Teahouse,

In the section on Emancipation Proclamation in Abraham Lincoln appears the statement "Error: No valid link was found at the end of line 6." That was not true, because, although the first link in footnote 225 did not work, the archived link did. But I edited the footnote to get rid of the first link. Now I'd like to get rid of "Error: No valid link was found at the end of line 6," but I don't see it when I go to "Edit source."

I have no objection to Sungodtemple's restoring the previous citation. My goal was to get rid of the Error statement, and Sungodtemple did that. My inserting the Wikilink was an afterthought, not the reason for my initial action, and I inserted it in a separate edit. Maurice Magnus (talk) 14:32, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Ah, ok...see I knew you had a reason! Sungodtemple fixed one Error and I fixed the other. It actually wasn't an issue with the cite. I saw those Error messages and ran it down from the edit history. Another editor ran ReFill 2 and that created those 2 "Error: No valid link was found at the end of line..." Errors. Those were actually both errors on the maps, ReFill 2 removed needed Wikilinks, you can see where that all happened with this edit. Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 15:06, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Your edit changed "Lincoln is often ranked in both popular and scholarly polls as one of the greatest presidents in American history." to "Lincoln is often ranked in both popular and scholarly polls as the greatest president in American history." with your edit summary being "The sentence says that he is "often," not "always" ranked the greatest."
Your edit summary doesn't make complete sense to me. The previous statement was "one of the greatest" meaning not "THE greatest". All of the polls mentioned in the article body under Historical reputation say that Lincoln is always ranked/rated in the top three US Presidents - doesn't that mean he's is among the greatest and not your edit that changed his ranking to "the greatest"? I want to adjust the present wording back to the previous text but don't want to edit war. Let's discuss. Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 17:13, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

It goes without saying that Lincoln is among the greatest presidents or one of the greatest presidents. The top dozen presidents might be said to be among the greatest, but Lincoln is more than that. Historical rankings of presidents of the United States, referring to four C-SPAN surveys, states, "Abraham Lincoln has taken the highest ranking in each survey and George Washington, Franklin D. Roosevelt, and Theodore Roosevelt have always ranked in the top five." Therefore, I think that it is accurate to say that Lincoln is often (not always) ranked as the greatest. If you're not comfortable with that, then let's compromise with "Lincoln is often ranked in both popular and scholarly polls as among the three greatest presidents in American history, the other two being Washington and FDR." Actually, I'd prefer, "as among the three greatest, if not the greatest president in American history, the other two being Washington and FDR," but I won't insist on that. I don't mean to dictate the exact words in this comment, but only my general thoughts. Maurice Magnus (talk) 20:35, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

My personal opinion aside, I want to avoid possible hagiographic language in Wikipedia's voice and rely on the sources cited in the text in the Historical reputation section. Ref #377, The Federalist Society source, states in their various Charts & Tables for Scholars' Ratings for Lincoln: Table 3 #1, Chart 2 #2, Table 1 #2. Ref #379, the 2011 Gallup source for the public's ranking of the Presidents, has Lincoln as generally #2 and by political party as #3 by Republicans, #1 by Independents, and #5 by Democrats. Ref #380, the 2004 book Presidential Leadership: Rating the Best and the Worst in the White House, has Lincoln ranked as #2. The C-SPAN Surveys of historians mentioned in the "Historical rankings" article has Lincoln ranked at #1 while the USPC/British historians poll also mentioned there has FDR at the overall #1 spot.

I think an adjusted text of "Lincoln is often ranked in both popular and scholarly polls as one of the greatest presidents in American history." more fully reflects the cited sources and all the various polls. - Shearonink (talk) 21:26, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Your "adjusted text" is what I reverted, so you seem unwilling to compromise. I'll suggest another compromise that I hope you'll find acceptable. Just add "very" before "greatest." "One of the greatest," as I said, goes without saying. Therefore, it doesn't tell readers anything they don't know. "One of the greatest" could mean that he is among the top dozen. "One of the very greatest" makes readers think of the top few, maybe the top three or four, I think. If you'll go along with adding "very," then please make the edit, and you don't need to write to me again. Maurice Magnus (talk) 21:43, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

I am sorry that I appeared unwilling to compromise - my bad. Your latest version of the text hits the sources & polls spot-on & is better than my suggestion. Shearonink (talk) 22:00, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for making the edit. It's good to put this behind us. Maurice Magnus (talk) 22:14, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

you deleted my lincoln edits and i just want clarification if the info itself is afoul or something else NotQualified (talk) 13:20, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

In which article? I don't see it in Abraham Lincoln. Maurice Magnus (talk) 13:33, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

hey, i think i clicked on the wrong user apologies! NotQualified (talk) 17:36, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

You say in "Legal positivism" Talk that you are "no longer competent to discuss Kelsen or Hart, whom I haven't read since the 1980s, or Raz, whom I've never read". Presumably, neither are you familiar with the considerable literature about each of these. With respect, how are you sufficiently informed to contribute to that article? Errantios (talk) 23:48, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

If you think that my edits contain errors, you're free to correct them. Maurice Magnus (talk) 23:58, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Finally, many bibliographies throughout Wikipedia have reviews of books that they list.

Where? I've rarely seen this, and only where the review was worth citing as a relevant source. For an article like the Paris Commune, we're already awash in sources. czar 22:14, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Also, being around this long, surely you know better than to edit war when your contribution is reverted. czar 22:16, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

With regard to our recent discussion on my talk page about the placement of punctuation at the end of quoted material: I happened to run across this rather lengthy essay about the matter by a WP editor, which may (or may not) interest you. Deor (talk) 01:42, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. Maurice Magnus (talk) 10:27, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

This isn't a "style edit" as your edit summary claims, it is a different statement. Both are I think true, but they might not be. The whole passage is unrefed, so I will let it go. But I have noticed a tendency for this kind of thing in your fiddly edits. Please be more careful. Johnbod (talk) 17:13, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

Johnbod (talk) I see your point. I think that "more widespread" means that Michelangelo had an influence in more places than did Raphael, and I don't know whether that's true. But, whether or not it's true, "exceeded" is true, because "exceeded" encompasses "more widespread." Maurice Magnus (talk) 17:35, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

Hmm. It's also a move to more Latinate vocabulary, which is very often a step in the wrong direction (Wikipedia:Use plain English). But as so often with your edits, I'm puzzled as to why you felt the need to fiddle with the prose, given a lack of subject knowledge. So many of your edits seem to be like this. Johnbod (talk) 17:48, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

Hello Maurice Magnus, Templates for citations are very important for formatting, and tracking, citations. Once you get the hang of templating or build complex articles, you'll see how important they are and how important it is to maintain them. Also, a lot of the best of the automated Wikipedia maintenance is done with the templates. For example, maintaining citation integrity. Wishing you the best. Wtfiv (talk) 16:08, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IJ-a2KeyCAY&t=262 Polygnotus (talk) 18:40, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Stumbled across this article and saw no real lead. Was curious why he had an article at all. I saw you were doing some work improving this article and I'm glad. But would you mind giving the article a lead sentence which explains to the reader why he has an article about him? The article doesn't make it clear yet. BusterD (talk) 14:02, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

BusterD (talk) Good idea. I've done it; see if you think it is adequate. Maurice Magnus (talk) 14:42, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for helping me to see it. I've added some context. It's an interesting subject. BusterD (talk) 15:02, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

I can see I muffed it a bit. I can't figure why the son of Maine residents becomes a North Carolina legislator. Carpetbagging? This guy seemed all in on the enslavement. BusterD (talk) 15:10, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

BusterD (talk) We don't know whether he was guilty. Jonathan White doesn't say whether he was, and he told me personally that he doesn't know. I read White's book over a year ago, so I don't remember whether he allegedly outfitted more than one slave ship, but, as far as I recall, he was charged only with respect to one. Also, I like the Oxford comma, if you don't mind. :-) Maurice Magnus (talk) 15:26, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

I don't recall how he ended up in NC, and I don't recall that he was "all in on the enslavement." He was a strange character, impossible to figure out 150 years later.Maurice Magnus (talk) 15:29, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Which makes him a really fun subject for Wikipedia, so long as he's not a hoax (and this guy is real). On the Union side, I long ago discovered the French lady, who is another interesting rich kid of the ACW. BusterD (talk) 15:38, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Building ships for the slave trade implies a willingness to profit from it. BusterD (talk) 15:41, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

BusterD (talk) I didn't know about the French lady, but, I've read about the reverse situation. Albert D. J. Cashier, who fought for the Union and died in 1915 at the age of 71 was really Jennie Hodgers, who was one of the hundreds, if not thousands, of women who disguised themselves as men in order to fight in the Civil War. She was unusual because, after she returned to civilian life, she continued to live as a man. There is a chapter on her in Final Resting Places: Reflections on the Meaning of Civil War Graves, co-edited by Jonathan White.

Sorry for the lack of a detailed response, but I'm fallen sick. I give you the original excerpt: https://imgur.com/a/RetXSRl Menah the Great (talk) 21:22, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

Since the original text was added by other user, I think we should discuss the issue in the article's Talk page instead of here.--Menah the Great (talk) 15:32, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

I have removed many other mentions of "David Gildea" for a number of reasons, mostly that all were added around the same time by the same person (likely Gildea himself) and all of his translations are nothing more than AI works. Clearly this is an issue of self-promotion and WP:APPARENTCOI. FishandChipper 🐟🍟 01:22, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I am not the person who has been adding "David Gildea." I have been the main recent contributor to "Translations of the opening sentence," as I have been trying to make it complete. I don't remember whether I added Gildea, and, if I added it, I have no recollection of where I became aware of it. On 23 August 2024, I moved Gildea to where it is now, but I cannot find when it was initially added.

I just googled kafka metamorphosis translation gildea - Google Search Please take a look at the google results, and click on the first two, from amazon.co.uk and amazon.com. From these and from what you say, I am suspicious as to whether a Gildea translation exists at all. See what you think. If you think that it doesn't exist, then I will not object to your removing it.

Maurice Magnus (talk) 01:55, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

This "David Gildea" character has been appearing not only here but on many other pages that list translations of famous works (All Quiet on the Western Front, Republic by Plato and The Brothers Karamazov to name a few, all of which I have since removed). I think that even Amazon caught onto these being nothing more than AI translations and removed them from it's shop. I will again remove David from the The Metamorphosis page and I hope you don't revert it again. FishandChipper 🐟🍟 07:11, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

Of course I won't revert again; I said that I would not object if you think that the Gildea translation doesn't exist. My problem had been that you gave no reason for singling out Gildea as non-notable, and, after I pointed that out in my first reversion, you simply repeated that Gildea is non-notable. Now you've provided a good explanation. Maurice Magnus (talk) 09:10, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

Do you think Lee's surrender to Grant on April 9 1865 should be mentioned somewhere in the Lincoln article? LittleJerry (talk) 21:19, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

I just added a sentence at the end of the section on his re-election. See what you think. Maurice Magnus (talk) 21:42, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

Thank for your devoted attention to and care of the Kafka page as well as your many thoughtful revisions/corrections. Forgive the onslaught. I’m done now for a while now, I think, and I much appreciate how carefully that page has been tended. It’s a beautiful effort.ThomasMikael (talk) 19:19, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

...not because that particular edit was special, but rather as a kind of synecdoche for all the work you've done on the article. I looked back over the page's edit history (as I sometimes do on pages in my edit history that I don't recall too well, or which catch my interest again; or, as in this case: ...for no apparent reason at all, heh) & saw you'd been plugging away at improving the article, consistently & for a good while; and these sorts of rather niche articles often don't get that sort of attention.*

Anyway, not that it's very important or anything---just to (a) offer a bit of recognition, and (b) so you wouldn't be confused by "wait, why that specific edit?!", heh.

*(A shame, I think, because they're often the ones that, when needed---however (in)frequently that may be---are really needed... because there are thousands of webpages wherein one can obtain information about Locke or Plato, but it's not too uncommon that it will be just Wikipedia that has useful information on, say, Crispin Sartwell / Jerrold Katz / vel sim.!)

Cheers,

Himaldrmann (talk) 20:00, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

Thanks. If you're interested in keeping up with Sartwell's writing, click on the link in n.6 and type his name in the search bar. Maurice Magnus (talk) 20:07, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Doniago. I noticed that you added or changed "in popular culture" content in an article, From Here to Eternity, but you didn't provide a reliable secondary source. On Wikipedia, it's important that all "in popular culture" article content be supported by a source that verifies not just the existence of the popular culture reference, but also its significance to the article's subject. If you'd like to resubmit your change with an appropriate citation, your edit is archived in the page history. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. DonIago (talk) 03:44, 26 September 2025 (UTC)

I thought the sentence was too long-- it was the entire paragraph. Nothing drastically long like I've seen elsewhere and still readable, but breaking it into two sentences reads a lot easier IMO. I think the second sentence could use some work to avoid passive voice. The giant 4th paragraph too, but that's for another day. Thanks for your feedback-- I'm new-ish to wikipedia editing and was told to be bold, and I'm hoping to do that. Gegenpresser (talk) 18:56, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

I broke the fourth paragraph into two, without changing anything in it. The second sentence of the second paragraph is in two parts, beginning with "Expansion" and "whereas." Neither part uses the passive voice. Perhaps you think that the "would" in each half makes it passive, but I don't think so. I'm going to paste this reply on your Talk page, because I don't think that you'll get an email informing you that I replied on my own Talk page. Maurice Magnus (talk) 19:10, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

Hi. I saw your exchange with Tim riley at Claude Debussy. If you make an edit, and another editor reverts your edit, do not re-revert. Instead, per WP:BRD, you can open a discussion on the Talk page to present your arguments, and see if other editors agree with you. That is how we achieve WP:CONSENSUS. I must say that I find Riley's argument in the edit summary compelling. -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:50, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for the advice, which I will follow if I disagree with a reversion of an edit of mine in the future. I am curious, though, why you agree with Tim Riley. Am I not correct that books listed under Further reading virtually never explain what they add to sources, and am I not correct that it is impossible for a book, especially a full-length biography, not to contain material that is not in other books? I am genuinely interested in understanding Tim Riley's and your position; I am not looking to argue with you, and, if you reply, that will be the end of this discussion. Tim Riley deleted my comment on his Talk page without replying to it. Maurice Magnus (talk) 18:24, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

In addition to Wikipedia:Further reading#Limited, please consider the spirit of WP:NOTEVERYTHING and WP:BESTSOURCES. The Further reading list should be a carefully curated list of the most important and best-quality sources that one might consult for further information about a topic, not a complete or overlong list of sources that mention the topic. So, we should not add additional items to the list unless they are better than, or provide important additional information to, the ones already listed. Otherwise we are just adding clutter. -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:47, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

Hello, Maurice Magnus. Unless there's a reliable source (not a Wikipedia mirror) for this actor's birthdate, and you are citing that source in the article, please do not add a birthdate. Please see WP:DOB. SuperMarioMan (talk) 00:24, 12 December 2025 (UTC)

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2026!

Hello Maurice Magnus, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2026. Happy editing, Abishe (talk) 09:08, 25 December 2025 (UTC) Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

Abishe (talk) 09:08, 25 December 2025 (UTC)

Happy New Year!

Maurice Magnus,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
Volten001 ^☎ 07:34, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Volten001 ^☎ 07:34, 2 January 2026 (UTC)