User talk:Euryalus

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Contents

The Bugle: Issue XCIV, January 2014[edit]

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 13:24, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Dolph Ziggler[edit]

The IP edit to Dolph Ziggler here isn't supported in the reference. The ref doesn't mention the Royal Rumble at all. The detail may be correct, but a new ref is needed for it. I reverted it along with the vandalism, but it seems the 7 edits are still pending, and that we bumped into each other. INeverCry 06:26, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Your reversion of the IP edit was completely correct, apologies for missing the lack of sourcing. I was there entirely to revert the image vandalism by the editor after the anon IP and didn't look further back. Euryalus (talk) 06:28, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
That same editor has vandalized the article with 2 accounts, Salah20002222 and Salah2222. INeverCry 06:38, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, both blocked for repeated vandalism. Euryalus (talk) 11:56, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

OAAA OBIE Awards[edit]

Hello,

I have created the page "OAAA OBIE Awards" and it has been deleted. The reasoning provided is proposing there is not enough sources and that the award show is not a real award. This award show is highly prestigious in the out-of-home advertising industry. I work for the Outdoor Advertising Association of America and we would like to have this page created and published. Can you please provide me with further insight as to why this page was deleted and how I can make changes to have this page re-posted?

Thank you.

Best Regards, Erica Glotfelty — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mbb1184 (talkcontribs) 16:56, 28 January 2014 (UTC)


Hi, and thanks for the message. As a starting point I need to point out that Wikipedia strongly discourages people from writing articles about themseves, their employers or anything directly related to them, as they are likely to have an actual or perceived conflict of interest. If these Awards are notable enough for an article, it is likely that someone else unconnected with them will also think so and will create the article themselves. Note you are not prohibited from creatin the article just because you work for the organisers of the awards; but there is a risk it will be re-deleted or heavily changed.
On the article itself - it was an expired procedural deletion - that is, an apparently uncontroversial deletion because its failure to meet a specific criteria was evident and uncontested over a seven-ay period. The issue with the article was notability. To be included in Wikipedia, the topic of te article must be the subject of significant independent coverage in reliable secondary sources. In this case the only references for the Awards were primary sources - that is, weblinks set up by the Award organisers. If you wished to recreatethe article you would need to include eferences for the major facts in it, sourced from (say) mainstream media outlets, reliable fact-checked specialist journals and the like. This cannot be trivial or passing mentions like a paid advertisement of a simple list of winners - it needs to be significant coverage with some level of detail.
Sorry if all the above sounds overly bureaucratic. In case you do wish to recreate the article and have enough reliable secondary sources to do so, I've saved the latest deleted version at User:Mbb1184/OBIE so you have something to work from. Euryalus (talk) 19:53, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Need Stuff on Page[edit]

Need userpage up... Never requested it deleted. (JoeCool950 (talk) 06:04, 1 February 2014 (UTC))

Need to undo deletion. If I wanted it deleted, would have put a templete up, so it needs to be back up. (JoeCool950 (talk) 06:40, 1 February 2014 (UTC))
Just give me a link that has the stuff on there, so I can copy it back up, or put it back up. (JoeCool950 (talk) 06:43, 1 February 2014 (UTC))
Userpage needs to be restored. Thank you (JoeCool950 (talk) 19:54, 1 February 2014 (UTC))
You requested your userpage be deleted here. You seem to have a long history of asking for your userpage to be deleted then changing your mind. Have restored it again. Euryalus (talk) 20:01, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
That's true,or putting up a template, and then changing my mind. (JoeCool950 (talk) 20:06, 1 February 2014 (UTC))

March 2014 GAN Backlog Drive[edit]

It's that time again! Starting on March 1, there will be another GAN Backlog Drive! There will be several changes compared to previous drives:

  • This drive will introduce a new component to it; a point system. In a nutshell, older nominations are worth more points than newer nominations. The top 3 participants who have the points will be awarded the Golden, Silver, or Bronze Wikipedia Puzzle Piece Trophy, respectively.
  • Unlike the December 2013 Backlog Drive, earning an additional barnstar if you reached your goal has been removed.
  • The allowance to have insufficient reviews has been lowered to 2 before being disqualified.
  • An exception to the rule that all reviews must be completed before the deadline has been created.

Also, something that I thought I would share with all of you is that we raised $20.88 (USD) for the WMF in the December 2013 drive. It may not sound like a lot but considering that that was raised just because we reviewed articles, I would say that's pretty good! With that success, pledges can be made for the upcoming drive if you wish.

More info regarding the drive and full descriptions regarding the changes to this drive can be found on the the drive page. If you have any questions, feel free to leave a message on the drive talk page.

I look forward to your participation and hope that because of it, some day the backlog will be gone!

--Dom497

--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:58, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue XCV, February 2014[edit]

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 23:29, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

GAN March 2014 Backlog Drive[edit]

The March 2014 GAN Backlog Drive has begun and will end on April 1, 2014! Sent by Dom497 on behalf of MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:01, 1 March 2014 (UTC) 64.134.67.78 (talk) 01:36, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Natalac[edit]

Are these references good enough to reinstate Natalac 1. Worldstar hip hop video Pimp of the City http://www.worldstaruncut.com/uncut/68146, http://www.mtv.com/artists/natalac/biography/, http://www.broadjam.com/artists/bio.php?artistID=75800, 24 Hour Hip Hop Interview: Natalac To Build an Empire 1. http://24hourhiphop.com/next-in-line/natalac-to-build-an-empire/ Worldstar HipHop Video Natalac - Money Girl 2. http://www.worldstarhiphop.com/videos/video.php?v=wshh1btN0E3Dph8OrGci MTV Releases Natalac - Hidden Adjenda Album 3. http://www.mtv.com/search/?q=natalac Florida Times Union on Nat - Do Whacho No U Shud Album 4. http://jacksonville.com/tu-online/stories/100402/ent_10599124.shtml COAST 2 COAST MIXTAPE VOL. 225 HOSTED BY: YO GOTTI 5. http://www.datpiff.com/Yo-Gotti-Coast-2-Coast-225-Hosted-By-Yo-Gotti-mixtape.434715.html COAST 2 COAST MIXTAPE VOL. 224 HOSTED BY: KENDRICK LAMAR 6. http://www.datpiff.com/Kendrick-Lamar-Coast-2-Coast-224-mixtape.432017.html COAST 2 COAST MIXTAPE VOL. 183 HOSTED BY: WYCLEF JEAN 7. http://www.datpiff.com/Wyclef-Coast-2-Coast-183-mixtape.284549.html Natalac Express - Transportation Services 8. http://transportation-services.findthedata.org/l/1549498/Natalac-Express 9. http://www.datpiff.com/Gunplay-Coast-2-Coast-Mixtape-Vol-247-Hosted-By-Gunplay-mixtape.557689.html COAST 2 COAST MIXTAPE VOL.247 Hosted by GunPlay 10. http://www.datpiff.com/Too-Short-Coast-2-Coast-Mixtape-Vol-244-mixtape.546620.html COAST 2 COAST MIXTAPE VOL. 244 Hosted by Too Short 64.134.67.78 (talk) 01:36, 20 March 2014 (UTC) these are some recognized sites for additional refs... s.m. Davis ty for taking the time to reply…

Hi, been largely away from the keyboard for a couple of days. Will have a look today and get back to you. Euryalus (talk) 20:41, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Gracie Barra (Montreal)[edit]

There have been two AfD debates in the last month (Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gracie Barra Montreal (2nd nomination). The last one for an identical article in everyway except for the inclusion of brackets in the title. In my opinion it should be salted.Peter Rehse (talk) 12:55, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

You're correct, I checked this title for previous deletions, but missed that they had happened under an alternative title format. Apologies. And have salted this one as you suggest, given the number of recreations. Euryalus (talk) 20:35, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
No sweat thanks. CHeers.Peter Rehse (talk) 20:42, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks[edit]

I saw that the OP was blocked right after I responded. Thanks! C1776MTalk 10:23, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue XCVI, March 2014[edit]

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 12:05, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Main Page appearance: HMS Endeavour[edit]

This is a note to let the main editors of HMS Endeavour know that the article will be appearing as today's featured article on April 29, 2014. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. If you prefer that the article appear as TFA on a different date, or not at present, please ask Bencherlite (talk · contribs). You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/April 29, 2014. If it needs tweaking, or if it needs rewording to match improvements to the article between now and its main page appearance, please edit it, following the instructions at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/instructions. The blurb as it stands now is below:

HMS Endeavour off the coast of Australia. By Samuel Atkins c.1794

HMS Endeavour was the Royal Navy research vessel commanded by Lieutenant James Cook on his first voyage of discovery to Australia and New Zealand from 1769 to 1771. She was launched in 1764 as the collier Earl of Pembroke, and purchased by the Navy in 1768 for a scientific mission to the Pacific Ocean and to explore for the surmised Terra Australis Incognita. Her voyage took her to Tahiti for the 1769 transit of Venus, then south into the largely uncharted South Pacific. In September 1769 she reached New Zealand, the first European vessel to visit in 127 years. Seven months later Endeavour became the first ship to reach the east coast of Australia, making landfall in Botany Bay on 29 April 1770. Her return voyage marred by shipwreck and the deaths of one third of her crew, Endeavour reached the port of Dover in July 1771 after nearly three years at sea. In 1776 she returned to naval service for the American Revolutionary War but was scuttled in a blockade of Narragansett Bay, Rhode Island. The wreck has not been precisely located, but relics including cannons and an anchor are displayed in maritime museums worldwide. The Space Shuttle Endeavour was named in her honour in 1989. (Full article...)

You (and your talk-page stalkers) may also be interested to hear that there have been some changes at the TFA requests page recently. Nominators no longer need to calculate how many "points" an article has, the instructions have been simplified, and there's a new nomination system using templates based on those used for DYK suggestions. Please consider nominating another article, or commenting on an existing nomination, and leaving some feedback on your experience. Thank you. UcuchaBot (talk) 23:01, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Precious[edit]

Cornflower blue Yogo sapphire.jpg

endeavour
Thank you, editor of military History, ships, piracy and Australian places, for quality articles such as HMS Endeavour, for a simple clear user page (with first: To do), for your endavour to gnomishly take care of articles, asking for sources, - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:15, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

That's very kind of you, thanks. Euryalus (talk) 05:35, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 13[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited HMS Integrity, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bulkhead (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:55, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks DPL Bot! Euryalus (talk) 09:15, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue XCVII, April 2014[edit]

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 14:31, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

You were looking for "any other views..."[edit]

A while back you were looking for "any other views..." in the talk page of "bank" in the section "Definition of fractional reserve banking"... I just added a view. Cheers. Reissgo (talk) 08:41, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue XCVIII, May 2014[edit]

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 22:21, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Request for comment[edit]

Hello there, a proposal regarding pre-adminship review has been raised at Village pump by Anna Frodesiak. Your comments here is very much appreciated. Many thanks. Jim Carter through MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:47, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue XCIX, June 2014[edit]

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 15:11, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

BNA Access[edit]

Hey Euryalus, you have a user email waiting for you with instructions on how to access BNA via our Wikipedia Library Partnership, Sadads (talk) 16:39, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Hello Euryalus, please make sure to complete the instructions, including completing the Google form, in order to receive access to BNA, Sadads (talk) 15:44, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, done. Euryalus (talk) 12:40, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks[edit]

For doing the move and particularly for leaving advice on the new editor's talk page! I'm finding it hard to keep up with my watchlist, Admin duties and now my talk page which gets busier and busier! Dougweller (talk) 13:52, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

No worries. He was making a good faith attempt to move the page, but the destination page already existed so he created a veritable thicket of redirects trying to get it there. Easy fixed. Euryalus (talk) 13:56, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue C, July 2014[edit]

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 03:47, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Please remember to 'plate new IP vandals, etc. on their talk page[edit]

Especially when there is something apparently egregious going on[1] and they don't have an existing talk page. I tend to {{welcome-anon}} editors without talk pages when I see them; and if someone has 'plated them first it can save me some heckling. (FWIW, I think it's also fine to welcome them and 'plate them at the same time, per WP:AGF.)-- Kendrick7talk 03:03, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the message. Hard to tell from this user's single edit but they are a sock of a long-term banned user. The point of their post was to include an offensive edit summary about another editor. The reversion was in the context of WP:BAN and to enable a revdel of the edit summary, which cannot be done if it is the most recent item in the article history. As it's a throwaway IP of an inveterate vandal, there was no point in leaving a warning. The IP could have been blocked, which would justify a template, but it appeared from other posts that the vandal's IP had already changed.
Unrelated - I would be interested in your views on the value of welcoming anon IP editors. Do you get much feedback or indication it steers them towards info on how to get more involved? Euryalus (talk) 03:40, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Re: Unrelated, It's never occurred to me to follow it up. Presumably over the past 8+ years someone has taken the template's knowledge I dropped, created an account, and gone on to be a wondrous editor for the project. If not, then it's whatever's clever. :) -- Kendrick7talk 02:56, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) Kendrick7 That is a well-known banned user, standard template rules don't apply. Anything of his can be reverted/reported/blocked immediately. ♥ Solarra ♥ ♪ 話 ♪ ߷ ♀ 投稿 ♀ 07:36, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
You actually can not revert encyclopedic content, per WP:PRESERVE, although that is currently a subject of debate. That said, this is a big project, with many hands on deck: nothing is "well-known"! -- Kendrick7talk 02:56, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
He just stopped by here too, to post some personal attacks from a different IP. I feel special :) Euryalus (talk) 07:38, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Deleting the Morgan Garrett page[edit]

I want this to be deleted. She doesn't have enough credits, and she's kinda a newbie like Austin Tindle and Martha Harms. So please? Wooeyparks (talk) 24:06, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

It can't be deleted as a WP:G7 because there are multiple editors and the speedy deletion criteria are very specific. If you think the article lacks notability you might consider either the proposed deletion or articles for deletion processes. Euryalus (talk) 01:38, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Question[edit]

Hello, I am user JeanBedelBokassa, who you recently reprimanded for adding content from Narutopedia to a wikipedia page. I would like to ask why you thought I was experimenting. In actuality, I was copying content from Narutopedia so that I could read it in a wikipedia article, because I like reading text in the style of a wikipedia article. (Jeanbedelbokassa (talk) 01:26, 1 August 2014 (UTC))

This edit took a slab of text from an anime database and added it to the Wikipedia article on the Dodai tribe. Your addition had nothing in common to the article you added it to. It was either an accidental test edit or it was vandalism. Either way, this is an online encyclopedia and not a webhost for unrelated texts. Euryalus (talk) 01:39, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Dear Euryalus, Why do you feel the need to be so stern? All I did was use Wikipedia as a webhost. It's not like I inserted 500 million curse words into the article. At least the last guy who reprimanded me acted like he cared about my explanation. I really don't like you dismissively referring to my reasons for the edit as "vandalism", which, while technically correct, is really misleading. Also, I never said(or thought) that wikipedia was supposed to be used for webhosting. My initial reply to you was intended to make it clear that I understood that I had misused the power to edit and to enable you to understand why i did what i did. Sincerely, A 15-year old human being (Jeanbedelbokassa (talk) 02:20, 1 August 2014 (UTC))

Thanks for your reply. I described it as a test edit, which it evidently was. As was your previous edit to Gaston Gradis, which you self-reverted a few minutes later. You're right in saying it is hardly the worst offence in the world, but again, this is an ecyclopedia and not a general webhost - it's not helpful to have unrelated material added to articles and creates work for others in removing it later.
The best place for test edits is a sandbox which you can create in your userspace so you can see how things look when you play around with their layout. You can create your own sandbox by entering something like User:Jeanbedelbokassa/sandbox into the search box on the left of your screen. It will prompt you to create that page and you can then add material and play around with it without affecting the main encyclopedia. Of course, the usual rules apply on copyright materials and images.
So, the short version: you're right that your edits weren't some earth-shattering offence, but please don't make test edits on encyclopedia pages. And in passing, please don't let any of this discourage you from editing Wikipedia further - just keep the test edits where they belong and add the encyclopedic ones to the actual articles. Euryalus (talk) 09:57, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Technical problem?[edit]

At User talk:2602:306:CC2E:EFB0:BD56:7138:18DC:D5D0 it seems that the user is continuing to post to his talk page although the block log says his talk access is revoked. EdJohnston (talk) 03:34, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. The only thing I can think of that the address was originally rangeblocked by User:DoRD, and somehow that is the cause. I am reluctant to amend a rangeblock to block talkpage access, given the potential to affect other editors. Will pursue this elsewhere to see if there's an alternative explanation. The IP address in question is being used for lulz vandalism rather than anything truly offensive, so hopefully the delay won't cause much harm. Euryalus (talk) 03:40, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Editor still at it[edit]

Remember this? The editor is still at it. [2], [3] are the two latest ones but the behavior really hasn't stopped since the block expired. --NeilN talk to me 14:04, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know.Blocked for six months. Hope springs eternal that he will learn about reliable sources in that time. Euryalus (talk) 21:17, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
Stranger things have happened. Such as a group of volunteers creating the world's leading encyclopedia :-) --NeilN talk to me 21:46, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

WikiProject Good articles Future GAN Backlog Drive[edit]

Hello everyone! Hope you've all been having a great summer!

TheQ Editor recently proposed the idea of having another Backlog Drive in either September/October or November/December of this year. For those of you who have participated in the past two drives you know I was the one who organized them, however, come September, this will be my most important year in school so I will not be able to coordinate this drive (if it happens). TheQ Editor has volunteered to be a coordinator for the drive. If any of you would like to co-coordinator, please notify TheQ Editor on his talk page.

If you would be interested in participating in a Backlog Drive sometime before the end of this year, please notify TheQ Editor. Also, make sure to specify what month(s) work best for you.

At the time this message was sent out, the backlog was at 520 nominations. Since May, the backlog has been steadily increasing and we are currently near an all time high. Even though the backlog will not disappear over one drive, this drive can lead to several others which will (hopefully) lead to the day where there is no longer a backlog.

As always, the more participants, the better, and everyone is encouraged to participate!

Sent by Dom497--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:52, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CI, August 2014[edit]

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 15:23, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Royal Cambodian Air Force FC[edit]

Why has this article been deleted? Used to be a full article about a top Cambodian side?Abcmaxx (talk) 16:45, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi, and thanks for the message.
The article was taken to AfD here with the suggestion that it was not notable. During the discussion the article's only author, User:Dr. Blofeld, requested speedy deletion as a WP:G7 - a good-faith request by the only substantial contributor to the page.
It wasn't a full article - the entire article content comprised a brief infobox and this text: "Royal Cambodian Air Force FC, is a football (soccer) club in Cambodia. It plays in the Cambodian League, the top division of Cambodian football."
It's not much to work with but feel free to create a new version if you'd like. Euryalus (talk) 23:22, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Where's the abundance of reliable sources??Dr. Blofeld 06:15, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that is a fair point. :) -- Euryalus (talk) 07:53, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm of the opinion that a stub is better than no article at all. If it played in the top Cambodian League it was therefore notable. The football infobox takes some time though to make, even if the article content was no more than a sentence. I would restore it personally (not sure if that's possible though) Abcmaxx (talk) 11:50, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

There's a couple of options:
  • If you disagree with the entire deletion, you can seek a reversion at WP:DRV - even though an AfD was lodged, the article was actually speedy deleted as a G7.
  • Alternatively, you can simply create a new article on the same topic. The previous one had little content and no references, but your recent edit history suggests you have a good background in sports articles so you may be well placed to fix that. To assist, I've created a userfied version of the deleted article at User:Abcmaxx/Royal Cambodian Air Force FC. If you do use this text as the basis for a new article you may wish to consider providing some attribution to User:Dr. Blofeld in the first edit summary when you move it to mainspace.
Hope this is useful, and please let me know if there's anything else I can do to help. Euryalus (talk) 00:00, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

GA Cup[edit]

Hello everyone! We hope you have all been having a great summer!

As we all know, the recent GAN Backlog Drives have not had any big impact on the backlog. Because of that, me (Dom497), Figureskatingfan, and TheQ Editor have worked on an idea that could possibly finally put a dent into the massive backlog. Now, I will admit, the idea isn't entirely ours as we have took the general idea of the WikiCup and brought it over to WikiProject Good Articles. But anyways, here's what we have in mind:

For all of you that do not know what the WikiCup is, it is an annual competition between several editors to see who can get the most Good Articles, Featured Article's, Did You Know's, etc. Based of this, we propose to you the GA Cup. This competition will only focus on reviewing Good articles.

For more info on the proposal, click here. As a FYI, the proposal page is not what the final product will look like (if you do go ahead with this idea). It will look very similar to WikiCup's page(s).

The discussion for the proposal will take place here. Please let us know if you are interested, have any concerns, things to consider, etc.

--Dom497, Figureskatingfan, and TheQ Editor

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:28, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

September 2014[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Kalka Mandir, Delhi may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s and 1 "[]"s likely mistaking one for another. 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 my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • The temple complex is situated on Kalkaji Mandir (Delhi Metro] between the [[Nehru Place]] bus terminus & business center and [[Okhla]] railway station &

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 04:50, 14 September 2014 (UTC)


Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Prince of Wales (ship) may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s and 1 "<>"s likely mistaking one for another. 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 my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • went ashore in the longboat to seek advice on their location, but the villagers simply "view(ed)) us with the utmost astonishment... as if they had never seen a European or a ship other than their

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 14:28, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Hello[edit]

Hi. I respect your view immensely. However, kindly understand the long standing frustration of Mr. Adnan Sami who has been seeing false inputs about his career & life being written in the most bogus fashion by anyone whomsoever. For example, please see the history & you will see that on one hand the discography stated that his 1st album was released in 1990 (incorrect!) and then above it states that he is active from 2006 till present!!! They wipe out more than a decade of a man's hard work. In yet another instance, someone wrote that he learned music from a "Maharaj Kathak"... For the record, "Maharaj Kathkak was a Kathak dancer & could not sing or play a musical instrument thus had nothing to do with "teaching" music!! Also please note that this is a living Legend we are talking about! The record HAS to be set straight by someone who has access to him to get the facts right. A;so, please note that this is a man who shifted to India, considered to be an enemy country of Pakistan & many Pakistanis resent him for it since they feel he shifted so called 'loyalties' by shifting to Mumbai & also, many Indians out of jealousy feel the same way about a Pakistani coming to their home & literally becoming a sensation in their land!! Therefore, many who contribute to his page are driven by personal animosity which we must protect him from as he is just an Artiste who loves his Art and has nothing to do with politics.. That is why, you will see the ridiculous discussion regarding his "Nationality".. In the talk comments, there was a person who claimed that he was in the same boarding house as Mr. Sami at Rugby School... Complete fiction as when Mr. Sami was at Rugby, he was the ONLY Asian in his boarding house!! Everyone is either trying to own him or condemn him at times.. So, I need your help to clean up this mess on behalf of Mr. Sami. I will be most grateful if you can help in this as here we are talking about a man who's contribution to Asian Music has been phenomenal & due to his lack of attention to Wikipedia, his page has been grossly abused. Even the pics I posted were provided to me by Mr. Sami personally thus I posted them for him & yet people just chose to have them deleted! Why?? If HE is in the pic & has asked me to post them, then why should anyone object & have them deleted?? He is in those pics and he has no objections!! Please do understand & help.. Many Thanks.. Peter Downings

The Bugle: Issue CII, September 2014[edit]

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 02:25, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

WikiProject Military history coordinator election[edit]

Greetings from WikiProject Military history! As a member of the project, you are invited to take part in our annual project coordinator election, which will determine our coordinators for the next twelve months. If you wish to cast a vote, please do so on the election page by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 22:06, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

ANI[edit]

When I saw your comments I thought, "Well maybe that could be offensive and people could take it the wrong way" (Originally it was a comment about Trekkies). However the man/woman that reported me is now canvassing other people in "How to deal with me" at ANI. As I have had 0 interaction with the editor in question, I suspect that this is part of something larger, particularly based on where he went and from whom he seeks counsel. He had to go back 9 months to find a diff of me referring to a US Sanator as a 4-letter word concealed in an acronym (red my articles in the mainstream firearm press to see what I really think). He also dug up a comment I made to another editor totally out of context that was redacted [4] and another one with n editor with whom I have since mended fences. If he or she had approached me and said, "Hey dickhead, that joke is offensive and while I get it is really a pun on people who take everything literally, would you mind removing it"; I would have done so with no problem. Instead he/she tried to hit me over the head with his little rulebook and is now crying bout it to anyone who will listen.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 14:51, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Mike, Before I posted on ANI, I asked you on your talk page to retract the "aspie" remark, as well as other remarks in which you referred to editors as "losers" and compared editors to "eunuchs". You declined to do so. It sounds like you are not willing to remove these remarks. Is that correct?GabrielF (talk) 15:21, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
You did not ask me. You swang for the fences with your rulebook. (That is a metaphor, by the way, an exaggerated comparison not using like or as). The deal with the "eunuchs" which has you so inflamed (another metaphor) is actually a simile, which is an exaggerated comparison using like or as. If you actually took the time to read it, it says "critics", not editors and it is a quote from Brendan Behan. I was not asked nicely and was savagely attacked by you using policy, and you going back almost a year to try to find dirt on me, why would I do anything that you ask of me?--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 15:36, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
Replied on your talk page. Thanks for rewording the userpage text. Appreciate that it wasn't meant to be a literal reference. Euryalus (talk) 07:51, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Administrator Barnstar Hires.png The Admin's Barnstar
Read a few recent closures on ANI, nicely done! OccultZone (TalkContributionsLog) 13:39, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, much appreciated. Euryalus (talk) 04:41, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Prince of Wales (ship)[edit]

I see you have nominated Prince of Wales (ship) for Peer Review. Unfortunately I don't have the time to review it properly but I did notice that the red ensign used in the infobox, contains the cross of St Patrick so probably isn't appropriate for a ship sold in 1797. Hope you don't mind me saying so. Best regards--Ykraps (talk) 09:41, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't mind at all, and thanks for pointing it out - all of the civilian ships in the First Fleet display this flag in their infoboxes and they are all of them wrong. The Red Ensign article indicates the British Red Ensign was applicable to both merchant and naval vessels, so I have replaced the current images with this one, and moved it to the ship registry field. Euryalus (talk) 11:29, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
Actually, I've left them as shipinfobox flags in the Career headers, rather than flagicons in the registry field. This is principally for aesthetic reasons in these otherwise spartan infoboxes. Euryalus (talk) 12:43, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Please[edit]

I would really like to have some kind of formal interaction ban between me and this editor Coat of Many colours. Also, for Crisco ... since he wrote also that he wished Coat be I-banned from interacting with me and preferably Hafspajen as well - because in a couple of month the circus might start all over again. Hafspajen (talk) 14:32, 5 October 2014 (UTC).

  • I second that; if Coat does come back to edit (as hinted) I'd rather not have to start another thread if/when s/he begins interacting with us. I'd AGF, but considering how the editor seems to keep grudges I doubt its warranted. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:11, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
    • Why are you both asking now that the editor has been temp blocked? Wait until they return and allow them to voluntarily refrain from interaction. Right now...this is asking for something that does not seem necessary.--Mark Miller (talk) 02:21, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
Hm. Hafspajen (talk) 23:26, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
Looking. Give me a few hours. -- Euryalus (talk) 23:33, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Discussion of topic ban[edit]

It bothers me that I was banned from a topic that I did not exhibit a pattern of disruptive editing towards. There is no danger of my editing it again, but it feels disingenuous that my ability to do so was removed for a grand total of ten (I think? Perhaps less) edits on a talk page that I had ceased doing before being blocked, without any warning. I was not informed of any wrongdoing before being blocked, nor was it explained adequately by the blocking admin. I would greatly prefer if the GamerGate ban was also temporary. I'm fine with the BLP ban, though I must express surprise that you have fine enough control to carry that out. I had assumed that was just something you'd have to take my word on. Snakebyte42 (talk) 02:00, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Actually hold on, I appear to still be capable of editing those pages? IS this honour-system, then? Has it just not kicked in yet? Snakebyte42 (talk) 02:10, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
Hi. The Gamergate ban is a reading of the consensus of the ANI discussion, which was fairly evenly divided between a ban and retaining the block. I didn't exercise any discretion here except in determining which of those options, on balance, had the greater support. Or to put that another way, where a matter has been decided by the community I don't have the discretion to impose an alternative option, except possibly in cases of egregious policy breaches. So - if you'd like to shorten the Gamergate topic ban you'd need to open this as a new community discussion at some point in the future.
On the other one, as outlined in the closing statement - you acknowledged the BLP issues with the Gamergate talk posts, but your subsequent talkpage posts didn't suggest an especial understanding of the challenges of edits which incorporate allegations about living persons. My apologies if I have read your talkpage posts wrong - that is just how it appeared to me. You also indicated you weren't further interested in editing BLPs. I am happy to take your word for it, but I note that the community is less happy to do so - witness the various comments supporting retaining an indefinite block. As a suggestion, how about we return to this general BLP topic ban in a month - if there's been productive editing elsewhere, there may be more options.
And you're right, topic bans are not hard-coded. Bans are logged at WP:BLPLOG, which means if you edit pages from which you are banned and this is raised by any editor, you are likely to be indefinitely reblocked. Euryalus (talk) 02:14, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
No thanks. After this, I have little to no desire to interact with the Wikipedia community again. I am not overjoyed with this outcome but arguing about it after the degree of bias I encountered and the misrepresentation my actions received strikes me as even less favorable. My objections are ethical, rather than practical--while I don't especially care to edit that article again, being indefinitely restricted from doing so for a first unknowing offense rubs me very much the wrong way. I honestly did not understand the nature and reach of the BLP policy, and being punished for a mistake that a simple talk page notice could have fixed leaves a bad taste in my mouth. However, I accept your explanation that you can't do anything about it.
As for understanding BLP issues, you're partly right--I understand enough to know now (emphasis, NOW) why I was out of line, and enough to understand that it's more of a hassle than I care to deal with in the future. It's accurate to say that while any edits I make to BLP pages at this particular moment would probably fall foul of something, I know that I have to learn more, and how to go about doing that, should I care to contribute to BLP pages in the future.
If you want to shorten the ban on BLPs, that's fine with me, but understand that I am not especially pushing for it. Any outcome that causes time to erase the sanctions imposed suits me fine. It's very likely that there won't be any edits between now and a month. I mainly correct typos and tiny inaccuracies when I see them. My only significant contributions have been comicbook-related minutiae. I opposed the block so vehemently in part because the inability to make those tiny corrections would bother the hell out of me.
It's good to know the bans aren't hard-coded. Not that I intend to flout them or anything, it just 'feels' better.
You've also been neutral and professional, thank you. Pretty much the only reason any of this happened is because I took issue with others not doing the same. I'll likely hang around a bit to read your response (if any) and then vanish from Wikipedia for the forseeable future. Also, "In the end the outcome it is a judgment call which will likely please nobody.", I'm at least within spitting distance of pleased. ;) Snakebyte42 (talk) 02:33, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
Waitwaitwait, just so I have this in writing: The ban pertains to talk pages and so forth as well, not just articles, correct? Snakebyte42 (talk) 02:35, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
Hi, yes it does - the topic ban covers article pages, talk pages and any other en-wiki page. It is topic-related as much as page-related - so for example if someone starts a thread about Gamergate on ANI, don't contribute to it. But if there's an ANI thread on edit-warring over (say) taco flavours, feel free to jump in.
Re the BLP issue, no worries re not rushing in to anything. If you do want to edit non-Gamergate BLPs, have a read through WP:BLP and the various disputes at WP:BLPN, then come by in a month or so to discuss a shorter time. In the interim, good luck with the comicbook articles or whatever else seizes your editing interest. Euryalus (talk) 02:45, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
Understood. Thanks. Sorry if the questions feel like I'm trying to maliciously test these limits or something, it's just so much easier to abide by things when they're unambiguous. I'm done here, thanks again for handling the situation! Snakebyte42 (talk) 02:54, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Deletion of: Secret Door (TV series)[edit]

Hi Euryalus, I was searching to watch another K-drama my friend recommended by reading up on it on WP, but see it was deleted. Since I didn't see the page, prior to deletion, I don't know how it looked. But I can vouch for your concerns (No indication that this satisfies the notability guidelines for television series). The drama has top actors, [5], Han Suk-kyu, Lee Je-hoon, etc. and I'm sure it will be as popular on WP as all the other K-dramas are (as are the actors and OSTs!). If you could revive the draft and/or the discussion for deletion, I will look it over and attempt to add references, tidy up the writing, or anything needed, to keep it as an accepted page on WP, with the original contributor! Is this possible, please? Thank you.--Bonnielou2013 (talk) 15:59, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi, and thanks for the message. Am away from the keyboard until the weekend, but happy to userfy the draft for you as soon as I get back in front of a PC. Euryalus (talk) 11:28, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll wait to hear from you!--Bonnielou2013 (talk) 20:54, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

I've undeleted the article and moved it to User:Bonnielou2013/Secret Door (TV series) - feel free to edit it until it's ready for returning to the mainspace. When it's ready to go, you will need to move it back to Secret Door (TV series). Make sure you don't cut and paste the text back, because then it loses the attribution for its earlier edits. In passing, sorry that there's not much here, but at least you have plenty of scope for expansion. Euryalus (talk) 10:38, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Euryalus, your talk page didn't notify me (and I had a Watch on it!), so I'm just reading this. Oops, not much to work with, right? This may take some time for me to do, with all that is needed. I hope there is not a time element. Maybe it is better for me to just create a new page, with a different name, and "own" the page, as there is so little information. I'm benevolent to a degree, but am proud of the work I do myself, too. I can see why you deleted it. What do you think? thanks, --Bonnielou2013 (talk) 22:16, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Apologies Bonnielou2013, you may not have got a notification because I forgot to include a ping. There's no time limit - take as long or as short as you like. Either of your options is fine, but if it was me, I would start from scratch. The deleted version is unsourced anyway, so it is no great help in building a new article. Good luck with it! Euryalus (talk) 06:16, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice, when I have time, I will start from scratch. Can I use the same page name, or does it need to be slightly different? (The one thing they did right was name it perfectly!) You can remove the draft you gave me, I will not be editing it. And I'm going out of town next week, so it may be a while. Thanks again for consulting with me on this!--Bonnielou2013 (talk) 19:24, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Bonnielou2013, you can use the same title as no article exists at that location. As requested I've also deleted the redundant draft. Please let me know if there's anything else you need, and good luck with the article when you return. Euryalus (talk) 19:25, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

All the best Euryalus! Until next time.--Bonnielou2013 (talk) 20:51, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Deletion of SNIA Green Storage and Emerald Program[edit]

Can you please explain the current reasons for deleting the page when significant work went into providing the requested notability after it was pointed out.

I'm unclear as to what else is required.

Paultalbut (talk) 19:48, 15 October 2014 (UTC) Paul Talbut

Hi, will have a look and come back to you later today. Euryalus (talk) 21:00, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
The article was a deleted via the procedural deletion process, with the following reasons:
  • "No sources cited, no indication of notability;" and
  • "Trademarks are almost never notable, and no evidence exists that this meets WP:GNG."
Essentially, while the content of the article was no doubt factually accurate, it did not contain references sufficient to prove its notability. The content itself was unreferenced and the external links were either peripheral to this article subject or were primary sources. Also, passing mentions of an article subject are not generally sufficient - secondary coverage needs to be significant in its own right in order for the article to meet the general notability requirements.
I appreciate that all this might appear as a matter of opinion. The PROD process should only be used where the deletion would be uncontroversial, and that's no longer the case here. I've therefore undeleted the article and sent it to AfD as a procedural nomination - that is, one on which I am offering no opinion either way. The AfD process will allow wider community input on the notability of the article, so it's not just my view or yours but a consensus on whether the article meets the criteria for inclusion. If you have a spare moment, you may wish to comment in that discussion - you can find it by following the link at the top of the article page.
Hope this is helpful, and if I haven't properly explained my rationale for the deletion or the subsequent AfD, please let me know. Euryalus (talk) 05:19, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Could you check the admin board again? Thank you.[edit]

A new baby has been brought. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Butter and Cream (talkcontribs) 05:49, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CIII, October 2014, Redux[edit]

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

NOTE: This replaces the earlier October 2014 Bugle message, which had incorrect links -- please ignore/delete the previous message. Thank uou!

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 01:52, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

re: financial proposed deletions[edit]

It's always a pleasure to learn that another WikiProject is active enough to spot my activity, and I am gad to learn that WP:FINANCE (I presume) is one of them. Thank you for notifying me about your thoughts on my prods. Would this project happen to have a list of reliable sources similar to the ones I mentioned here? It would vastly aid me if my planned future cleanup of categories related to the new dotcom financial businesses (where I think I detected a big cluster of spam recently, hence my series of prods). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:31, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

ANI thread[edit]

It might be better if you would also include the RfC rules on publicizing an RfC and show where I went off track on that. As I said, I followed those rules. Given the contention by the other editors, the AfD, etc., I knew straight off that the RfC would be made an issue. However, Floydian was preparing to close their merge discussion and blank and redirect the articles. That is why I opened the RfC. This is likely why he feels his discussion was hijacked. I was especially sensitive to fault finding and criticism and made sure I followed those rules. So I'd appreciate it if you would acknowledge that in your close comment and show exactly where I made an error. Labeling an editor as having forum-shopped and canvassed makes it seem a deliberate, willful act, and that is not at all true. Most definitely not. I'd appreciate it if you'd modify those comments. Thank you. SW3 5DL (talk) 23:04, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

SW3 5DL, hi, and thanks for the message.
On the first point: you certainly followed the RfC rules in notifying random editors and inviting them to partiicpate. But these edits are a problem - [6], [7], [8], [9], [10]. They are AfD participants who !voted keep. You didn't personally notify Floydian - the AfD participant who voted to merge. Nor did you personally notify the various people who !voted merge at the original discussion. So editors who were likely to oppose a merge were given a personal notification, while others had to rely on their awareness of general talkpage posts. This creates at least the appearance of canvassing. If editors with previous engagement with a topic are notified of a new discussion, that notification must be equally applied.
Of course it is a statement of the obvious that Floydian and others were aware of the "US page" RfC and had the chance to participate. And even discounting the AfD !votes, there was plenty of third-party support for keeping the articles separate. So the practical effect is minimal. As I said in the ANI thread, I am happy to consider this notification issue as an oversight, though it did somewhat reduce the credibiltiy of the "US page" discussion.
On the second point (forum shopping): you !voted in a discussion, then opened a separate discussion on a subpage because you were aware the first one was trending against your position. To quote from WP:FORUMSHOP - "Raising essentially the same issue on multiple noticeboards, or to multiple administrators, is unhelpful to finding and achieving consensus. It doesn't help develop consensus to try different forums in the hope of finding one where you get the answer you want." You acknowledge it was deliberate, but say it was in good faith. That's fine, but please don't do this. Its disruptive, it complicates the ability to determine consensus, and it risks disenfranchsing editors who either don't know about the alternative debate or become weary from having to chase items across multiple boards. A conversation opened in a legitimate forum should usually be resolved in that forum, not via discussion forks elsewhere. -- Euryalus (talk) 05:45, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
Noooo, that's what they did. They had the discussion fork and it was closed to other editors because they didn't let anybody know what they were up to. The editors of the new articles had NO idea they were holding that discussion to merge. What do you call Doc James and Floydiann blanking and redirecting the articles, opening the discussion, and then Floydian opens an AfD. And despite that AfD closing as snow keep, they keep the name of that article on their list of articles to merge? What about that? What about them not using merge tags on those articles to alert the editors there? You NEVER mentioned that. You've created a totally one sided narrative putting their bad behaviour on me.
I've not done many RfC's. I had to read that page and it seemed to me that it was the right thing to do. I followed the rules. And if you bothered to read the merge discussion on the West Africa article, Floydian was about to close it after only 36 hours. They didn't want comments. They wanted the usual editors to comment and then they were done. They EXCLUDED the others by not notifying them of what they were up. They knew that by keeping it on the West Africa article talk page, only the editors who now opposed the new articles would respond. What was needed was a proper RfC. I did the right thing in opening this to the wider community. And you don't have any evidence that I did otherwise, nor do you have any evidence that I canvassed editors. Of the 10 editors I contacted at random, only 2 responded and they both voted, 'merge, 'while I voted keep. Also, you didn't bother to notice that only a few of the AfD editors responded. And you didn't take note at all of the prior disruption and the continuing disruption of Floydian and Doc James. I guess there's privilege on WP for some editors. They can do as they please. Doc James posted his own question there. All the editors arriving at the RFC saw that. The RfC discussion section was nothing but disruption and personal attacks. One of them actually socked as an IP, then signed in with his regular account and answered himself. He called me an idiot/moron on that page, my talk page and the West Africa talk page. But you don't seem to see what they did. You're just interested in hanging that label around my neck. I did not forum shop. I did not canvass. SW3 5DL (talk) 06:21, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
I"d have respected your decision and left it go if you'd mentioned their failure to notify the other editors by using merge tags and linking to their discussion on the talk pages of those articles. The fact that you ignored all that makes your decision very one-sided. Also, it wasn't a question of you opening another RfC. It was the question of you throwing out that RfC when it was stale. You don't seem to have picked up the fact that Doc James and Floydian had no intention of letting that RfC close. Did you notice what Doc James wrote, AFTER he ivoted? He wrote that the question I posed was flawed and there would have to be another RfC. You didn't bother to ask yourself, "If Floydian and Doc James were so opposed to the RfC and claimed it was forum shopping and canvassing, why didn't they go to ANI at the start? Why wait until the RfC has concluded?" That's disruption. RfC questions go to ANI all the time. Don't you find it odd that they disrupted the process, yet editors still ivoted, even reading all that they posted? And when I asked for it to be closed, Floydian reverts the closure. I noticed you NEVER mentioned that. They disrupted the RfC because they didn't want it in the first place. They knew the community was likely to say keep the articles because there was no reason not to have these articles. They did everything they could to disrupt that process. Nobody disrupted their 'private' discussion. And I did notify them. I notified them at their discussion and also on a new thread on that same article talk page. If I could have, I would have notified the AfD editors on a common talk pge, but none exists for that situation. And had the AfD been older, I'd have not bothered notifying those editors at all. But this was a brand new AfD, and they still persisted in attempting to merge that article despite the SNOW KEEP. Totally disregarded anything that didn't fit with what they wanted. SW3 5DL (talk) 06:33, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
I'm away from the keyboard for the next couple of hours. Will come back to you after that. -- Euryalus (talk) 07:04, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks for the additional messages. I've noted the contents, but none of it addresses the matters I raised here or in the ANI close.

However I do note your concern at being "labelled," despite no action being taken on the user conduct issues identified in the thread. Solely in the interests of encouraging a more collegial editing environment I've gone back and slightly anonymised the wording of the close. I don't believe it's necessary as a point of fact, but if small steps like this assist in building a better editing environment, that's all to the good. As I said earlier, there are excellent content contributors on all sides of these Ebola pages, but the article talk pages are not presently an entirely friendly place to be. Let's see if small steps like this helps. Beyond that, I refer you to my earlier comments. -- Euryalus (talk) 12:38, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

No matter how "anonymised" the comments, the decision has no integrity because it does not acknowledge what really happened. SW3 5DL (talk) 13:03, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
Btw, you said the talk pages 'are not presently an entirely friendly place to be.' Is that your euphemism for Floydian? Should editors even bother gathering diffs and going to ANI? Don't bother, we all already know the answer is no. SW3 5DL (talk) 13:20, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

E'tedalion Party[edit]

Hey I noticed you deleted this. Thanks and everything, but I was hoping you could restore it and follow the instructions on WP:List of hoaxes on Wikipedia so it could be preserved for the record. Jinkinson talk to me 14:52, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Jinkinson, sorry for the delay, will look at this in a few hours when back at a PC. -- Euryalus (talk) 00:12, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
Jinkinson, done. -- Euryalus (talk) 13:02, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Original Barnstar Hires.png The Original Barnstar
Euryalus, you've been pretty active at ANI and elsewhere, and I see your sensible decisions and closes all over the place. Thanks for making us admins look good. Or slightly better, at least. Drmies (talk) 18:45, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, that's very kind of you. -- Euryalus (talk) 19:09, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Your deletion of Trash Bag Bunch[edit]

Hi I noticed the deletion of the article. My reason for undelete is because if you looked at the manufacturing company's article which was linked in Trash Bag Bunch article it listed a number of products that they produced and each has an article of it's own but Trash Bag Bunch was empty so I filled it up. I think you ought to have a look at it. The source might have been a private website, but if you check other wikipedia articles, many of them link to private websites provided they are reliable and accurate sources. I unfortunately won't have the time to discuss it as I have a very busy schedule ahead of me, but if you think it's not notable, I suggest a request for deletion process be done so we can have a vote.--Nadirali نادرالی (talk) 19:24, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Done, now at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Trash Bag Bunch. -- Euryalus (talk) 20:11, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Thanks for restoring the article and starting the RFD process. I think more can be discussed in the entry. Thanks again.--Nadirali نادرالی (talk) 20:08, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
    • Hi Nadirali. No problems re undeletion. What the article really needs is reliable sources supporting its notability. I see another editor has posted a few potential sources at the AfD, so there might be something for you to work with there. I couldn't find anything really useful in my own quick search, but I am not a toy or manufacturing expert so I might just be missing them. Let's see what others come up with. Euryalus (talk) 23:12, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for closure[edit]

Re: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Disruptive_editing_on_ISIL_by_User:Gregkaye

Just wondering what Olive branch do you consider Technophant to have offered? To my mind there has just been politicking and pushing for the maximum sanction possible. There has been no attempt at reconciliation as has been possible at User talk:Felino123#Kudos to you (which must be viewed in context of this edit history and of this earlier misrepresentative content This content, still not edited despite request in the second paragraph of the "kudos" text to edit. the misrepresenting text served to isolate me further and produced a laughably false picture of me being the only person against criticism in the lead when Felino123 was the only editor actually editing in the other direction. I do not see the relevance of olive branches but arguably they may apply in my attempt at relationship with Felino123. In my relationship with Technophant the issues involve the ability to communicate fairly and clearly at times when he has a goal that he is pursuing. I would be happy for you strike the whole olive branch reference. Its actions that matter. There haven't even been words. Please also add comment that I consistently argued that contributions were added falsely or with mixed motives. Gregkaye 14:24, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi Gregkaye, and thanks for the note. I interpreted this comment by Technophant as an "olive branch" - " I propose to drop my complaint here if Gregkaye takes his issues to Dispute resolution noticeboard and agrees not to make potentially controversial edits (including furthering talk page disputes) until the DRN is closed." We might argue the rights or wrongs of the proposal, but it appears a good faith attempt to de-escalate the issue.
If I had to summarise my overly wordy close note, it would be in the first sentence of the "short version" - this is a dispute between good content contributors, and it is best resolved with goodwill, talkpage discussion and RfC's. Admin tools are a blunderbuss, and their use can sometimes create needless ill will and/or drive away people who actually add value to the encyclopedia. So - after some considerable time unpicking the thread (and learning something about ISIL from reading the article), I decided the best course was to urge everyone to get back to productive editing and not to start waving a big stick. That applies equally to the original report of "non-technical" 1RR breaches, and the attempt to impose a topic ban.
If the issues are not resolved through goodwill, talkpages and RfC's, then there's the option of admin tools, topic bans, admonishments, etc. But it would be a second best outcome.
Also, I note your request to add additional material to the close, but on reflection I prefer to leave it as it is. The views of all parties are preserved in the thread itself, and there's no immediate need to represent them all again in the closing message. Euryalus (talk) 23:08, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
Technophant, who referred to me as he, who has acted in badgering ways on the talk page of which he has refused to be accountable and who has refused to answer questions, had every reason to make those suggestion on the basis that there was no AN/I case against me. I have no reason to believe that, after his error, he just wanted to save face. You have seen my accusations on the page which are all justified. He has consistently argued for the highest penalty in regard to an issue that he was never involved with. It is only your point of view that it was an olive branch when a more logical interpretation was that it was a route for him to achieve a maximum effect. Gregkaye 23:19, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for closure 2 (not an original bone in my body)[edit]

Good call. Very sensible. Thanks for wrapping that up. Stlwart111 23:37, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Manual ping[edit]

Hi, I misspelled your name in a comment here, sorry. I don't think you got a notification when I corrected it, so here you go. Feel free to delete this. --Richard Yin (talk) 19:17, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

This is bugging me...[edit]

What is the joke with the image you used on the noticeboard for the discussion I was in? The fact that I can't figure it out is really getting to me! xD Tharthandorf Aquanashi (talk) 00:03, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi Tharthan. Alas I have no idea either - the image wasn't added by me but by someone earlier in the thread. Is it irony? Whimsy? Film appreciation? An obscure personal attack? One of Wikipedia's mysteries. I'm also happy to remove it if you like. -- Euryalus (talk) 00:16, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
Yes, do remove it if you could. Thanks much. Tharthandorf Aquanashi (talk) 01:20, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
Done. Also reclosed the debate to include the tail-end comments. -- Euryalus (talk) 03:53, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Blocked user[edit]

I notice you blocked User:I lick Keira Knightley's feet. Per this edit, I think you should remove the user's ability to edit his or her own talk page as well. StAnselm (talk) 23:37, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, done. -- Euryalus (talk) 23:48, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. StAnselm (talk) 00:03, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Question after[edit]

Thanks for answering my question well. Only if you like: could you help me to understand where "apparently indiscriminate addition of infoboxes and some hostile commentary" comes from? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:28, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CIV, November 2014[edit]

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 12:27, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Was this a mistake?[edit]

[11] ? Tutelary (talk) 06:22, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Tutelary, sorry, yes it was. Looks like an accidental click while reading my watchlist on an iPhone. Have reverted it. -- Euryalus (talk) 06:32, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Why don't you want the truth about Elves known?[edit]

Who is paying you to cover up the Elves' true origin in Fresno, California?

OK Tyr[edit]

Hey! I've started to work with the article. A pitty you deleted it! It's one of the largest orienteering clubs in Sweden. Hockew (talk) 14:39, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi, and thanks for the message. The article was deleted a few weeks ago via the procedural deletion process as being insufficiently notable. - that is, the club has not been the subject of significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. The sole source in the article mentioend the club only in passing - mentions like this are not generally sufficient as secondary coverage needs to be significant in its own right in order for an article to meet the notability requirements.
Of course, as with most articles there is potential for additional sources to be uncovered and added to the page, especially if the club is one of Sweden's largest. To assist in article development I've undeleted the page and moved it to User:Hockew/OK Tyr so that you or others can expand it and add additional references. If/when those references have been included, feel free to move the article back to the main encyclopedia by using the "move" tab on your screen (note, don't cut and paste the text, as that will lose the page history which shows who has edited it in the past).
Hope that's helpful, and good luck with the article. -- Euryalus (talk) 01:39, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
Thanks! Hockew (talk) 15:16, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

1740s British sloops[edit]

I'm writing to thank you for your August article (I believe you were the author) on HMS Drake (1741). You may have noticed that I recently inserted articles on all the classes of sloops built for the RN during the War of Jenkins Ear/War of Austrian Succession, as well as improving the relevent section of the List of corvettes and sloops of the Royal Navy. I'm hoping that we can produce similar Wikipedia articles on all of the remaining individual sloops of this period, and would ask whether you have any intentions in this direction? Rif Winfield (talk) 10:41, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi Rif Winfield, sounds like an excellent idea, will try making a start on the redlinks in the list over the next few days. Perhaps most usefully, I would create the skeleton on the articles like I did with Drake and would welcome your expertise in correcting any inadvertent errors and adding more specialist material. But however you would like to see these red links filled is fine by me. And thanks for compiling what is essentially the textbook on the Age of Sail vessels (as evidenced by the number of times I reference it in articles like Drake). -- Euryalus (talk) 19:28, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
The procedure you suggest suits me fine. Just create the skeletons and I will fill in details. Rif Winfield (talk) 17:14, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
Rif Winfield, had already done HMS Hawk and would welcome your views on accuracy and completeness. Am away for a couple of days but will start on Swift when I get back. -- Euryalus (talk) 20:17, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
Thanks! I have made a few changes. The most important is that you mentioned the Hawk as "weighing 206 76/96 tonnes burthen", which is incorrect. The use of the word "tonnes" alarms me because the tonne is a metric unit of weight, whereas of course the burthen ton is a measurement of volume, and cannot be converted to any weight. The word "tonne" should never be used in conjunction with a sailing warship; for that matter, the word "weighing" is also incorrect unless you are specifically talking about displacement tons (which are of course a measurement of weight). I have also added Ian McLaughlan's excellent The Sloop of War 1650-1763 (Seaforth Publishing, 2014. ISBN 978-1-84832-187-8) to the Bibliography of both the Hawk and the Drake. Best wishes for Christmas! Rif Winfield (talk) 17:32, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
Rif Winfield, Thanks for making the changes re tons burthen - I suspect I have made this same error in other ship articles also, so will go through them over the Christmas break and correct as required. I will also take your recommendation re Sloop of War and see if I can buy a copy somewhere. Lastly, am away until the Christmas week but would welcome your review of the upcoming Swift article when I get back and do the skeleton. I've found some passing mentions of both Hawk and Swift off the Georgia coast, which I will add to both pages when I return. And Merry Christmas to you too. -- Euryalus (talk) 15:44, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
There are a great number (running into three figures) of articles where the writer has assumed that the burthen ton is the same as the "long" ton of 2240 lbs, and has then compounded the error by putting in a "metric equivalent" in "tonnes" by multiplying by 1.016. So I'm sure that you were not alone in making this error. As explained above, this is completely wrong, so all of these articles will need correcting in due course. The way in which the burthen ton was calculated did alter slightly over the centuries, but in essence was compiled by multiplying the keel length (in feet) by the breadth inside the wales (in feet) by the depth in hold (from the top of the planking in the hold to the underside of the orlop deck or any platform, again in feet), all rounded to the nearest whole number (in practice, usually rounded down) and then divided by a divisor which for most of the Age of Sail was 94 (which is why so many accurate burthen tonnages end in fractions comprising 94ths). This divisor was different in the 16th and 1st half of the 17th centuries, and the way of measuring also altered later, with the depth in hold being replaced by half of the breadth, hence the calculation was essentially k x b x ½b /94. Hope this helps.
May I also make a small point about the use of the word "ship". Unlike the modern age, when ship is applied to any seagoing vessel, in the Age of Sail the word had a specific and more limited vessel meaning and should be only used for three-masted vessels which were square-rigged on each mast. Rif Winfield (talk) 13:34, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

DYK for HMS Aldborough (1727)[edit]

 — Crisco 1492 (talk) 18:28, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Edit request for goat page[edit]

Hi,

I have made an edit request for the goat page, which is semi protected. I saw that you worked on the page before and was hoping that you would take a look at my edit request. You can find it here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Goat

Thank you for your time and help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Harald O. (talkcontribs) 13:03, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Harald O., will have a look today. -- Euryalus (talk) 20:49, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Belgium NFT[edit]

Hi Euryalus,

thanks a lot for all the efforts you made in peer reviewing Belgium national football team. Also, my apologies for not having commented earlier; since last weeks (and also upcoming weeks) in real life were very demanding for me I spent little time at WP. Note that it is highly appreciated. One day (probably in a weekend upcoming month) I'll make sure to apply or discuss the comments you gave one by one. Even though I realize there is still quite something to be done, your comments are encouraging.

Kind regards and till later, Kareldorado (talk) 19:32, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Kareldorado, no problems. I confess I have no sporting knowledge, so it was an education to read this detailed and impressive article. Apologies if my copyediting introduced any inadvertent errors through not understanding the subtleties of European football. My minor copyedits and questions aside, the only real issue is the length - there are some FA's this long (see here) but not many. I suspect it would pass more easily if it was somewhat shorter. But overall congratulations, it looks like a great piece of work. -- Euryalus (talk) 20:48, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

user talk:Huldra[edit]

You accidentally deleted one revision that includes my message to the user. Am I right? --George Ho (talk) 02:41, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

George Ho, not sure if that was me or FreeRangeFrog - we were coincidentally removing the same set of edits simultaneously. Either way, I've restored the edit, which does appear to have been accidentally removed along with the subsequent vandalism. I note Huldra responded to your message anyway, so hopefully no harm done. But apologies for any inconvenience this caused. -- Euryalus (talk) 03:01, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Nominations for the Military history Wikiproject's Historian and Newcomer of the Year Awards are now open![edit]

The Military history Wikiproject has opened nominations for the Military historian of the year and Military history newcomer of the year. Nominations will be accepted until 13 December at 23:59 GMT, with voting to begin at 0:00 GMT 14 December. The voting will conclude on 21 December. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:41, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

This message was accidentally sent using an incorrect mailing list, therefore this message is being resent using the correct list. As a result, some users may get this message twice; if so please discard. We apologize for the inconvenience.

Bhargavaflame block[edit]

No questions or comments on the block, just your ANI summary. What in the world does "plus arête" mean? Arête didn't look at all relevant. Nyttend (talk) 00:21, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi Nyttend, I suspect autocorrect added accents. It should read arete - the archaic Greek spirit of excellence in fields befitting a hero. It follows Drmies' signature as Nisus immediately above. Euryalus and Nisus are Greek warriors in Virgil's Aenid. In a foot race, Nisus is coming first but slips and falls; in friendship he then trips the second place getter so I win the prize. Euryalus displayed arete by winning. Nisus displayed arete by sacrificing honor for friendship. In comparison - Drmies was reviewing this block and about to make it, but I got through first in the end. Less positively, I subsequently go on to be gruesomely martyred. But you can only take analogies so far. - Euryalus (talk) 00:39, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
Here I thought you meant that Bhargavaflame had fallen off the "thin, almost knife-like, ridge of rock" by getting blocked, or something like that. I can understand better now; thanks for the explanation. I read the Aeneid in translation in college (not for classes, but because I thought it was something I should probably do), but I found it really confusing and never figured out what was going on, let alone understanding well enough to remember several years later. Nyttend (talk) 04:21, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
Well, that too. But the Aenid is worth a read outside the blight of organised learning. I like the idea of arete - its the spirit of Achilles. I think Drmies prefers Odysseus, but there's no accounting for taste. -- Euryalus (talk) 07:34, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
Nyttend, you are more than welcome to sit in when we tackle the Aeneid in the survey of Western literature class; I will also teach it in a class dedicated to epic literature, this spring. Euryalus is partly right on my preference: I have had my share of problems with Achilles (not the least of which that he is so much better looking than me, though I wonder why he looks so much like Brad Pitt), but I never really cared that much for Odysseus. Since teaching the Aeneid (I teach it frequently) I have begun to favor the Trojan side. However, I'm rerereading the Iliad right now in preparation for next semester's class (I'm reading Stephen Mitchell's translation but will be using Stanley Lombardo's in class) and I am beginning to appreciate Achilles a bit more.

Organized learning is what I do, yes. It is a blight. I take some comfort in the fact that at least a few students every semester seem to enjoy it. Some may actually get something out of it. Some may read it again, for pleasure. I take more comfort in the fact that if I don't teach them the Aeneid no one else will. Now, Nyttend, if you have some time in between blocks and ArbCom cases, you might grab yourself Book 9 of the Aeneid where the "martyrdom" takes place. Some deaths are quite beautiful, though Virgil will not let us forget that these two were caused by male foolishness--ofermod, if you will, or just pure vanity. Drmies (talk) 14:59, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Ofermod? I'm sure Virgil would be confused by þæt Engliscan sprǣce. Well, as I said, I read it because I thought it would be a Good Thing, not because of coursework. It was like reading the Iliad for the first time: can't figure out anything. I spent three undergraduate elective credits on a Masterpieces of World Literature course (c. 15 students), and we spent several weeks (three? four?) on the Iliad; when explained by a professor who understood it, who cared about it, and who wanted to help us, it made far more sense. It's like the Divine Comedy (all three parts, read in the same course), which made much more sense when I read it for class than when I read it by myself. But I don't have much time for the by-myself reading; I'm in Tennessee, having just finished a most-of-the-day interview for a faculty librarian position. We'll see what I'm told over the next few weeks...Nyttend (talk) 20:29, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

"Violet Blue"[edit]

Hi, I am hoping you can help me with improving the Violet Blue page. Her birth name is (Redacted), and their are multiple sources online confirming this. Unfortunately, it appears that due to wiki's rules, none of these sources qualify as a "reliable source". So my question is this: in simple terms, what is required to include Violet Blue's birth name as part of her entry? Could you possibly give me an example? I am new to editing on wikipedia and would like to do this correctly.

It is obvious you are an expert with this sort of thing, so I am humbly asking for your help. It seems I keep running into a dead end when I attempt to include Ms. Blue's birth name on her page. Very frustrating, especially since (Redacted). Thank you!

Mark — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.172.3.235 (talk) 19:35, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi, will reply at Talk:Violet Blue to keep this together with related discussions. -- Euryalus (talk) 06:12, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

DYK for French frigate Junon (1806)[edit]

Mike VTalk 19:31, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Voting for the Military historian and Military newcomer of the year now open![edit]

Nominations for the military historian of the year and military newcomer of the year have now closed, and voting for the candidates has officially opened. All project members are invited to cast there votes for the Military historian and Military newcomer of the year candidates before the elections close at 23:59 December 21st. For the coordinators, TomStar81

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:33, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Congrats[edit]

... new arb! So far arbitration was (for me at least) a synonym for waste of time, and ideally it shouldn't even be needed, - let's work on that ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:12, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for that slightly worrying congratulations. Thanks also for the question along the way - I don't know how much attention people pay to the questions and answers, but they were certainly a worthwhile exercise from my perspective. Advice and criticism welcome over the next two years, especially in reminding me and others of our campaign commitments. -- Euryalus (talk) 21:57, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Induction to the 2015 Arbitration Committee[edit]

Congratulations on your success in the elections and welcome onto the 2015 Arbitration Committee. In the next few days we will induct you and the other new arbitrators. Please email arbcom-en-c@lists.wikimedia.org from the email address you wish to use for registration on the various private wikis and mailing lists. Please also indicate which, if any, of the checkuser and oversight permissions you wish to be assigned for your term (if you don't already hold both).

Over the coming days, you will receive a small number of emails. Please carefully read them. If they are automated registration emails, please follow the instructions in them to finalise registration. You can contact me or GorillaWarfare (the designated newbie contacts) directly if you have difficulty with the induction process. Lastly, you must identify to the Wikimedia Foundation prior to being appointed. Please promptly go to the Identification Noticeboard and follow the instructions linked there if you are not already identified.

Thank you for volunteering to serve on the committee. We very much look forward to working with you this term.

For the Arbitration Committee,
AGK [•] 08:35, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks AGK. -- Euryalus (talk) 16:53, 17 December 2014 (UTC)