User talk:Euryalus

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


Problematic edits[edit]

This editor has been adding various pics all or most of which seem to be lacking the proper permissions etc. I posted an images helps section on their talk page but in light of your reversion of one of their pics at Christina Aguilera wanted you to be aware of their overall contributions. Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 03:49, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your message, and also for your helpful advice to Raisedbynutella. I've left a message for them as well, hopefully together we can encourage them to stop adding non-free images to these articles. -- Euryalus (talk) 04:12, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 2[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited HMS Apollo (1794), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Capstan. 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) 09:33, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, DPL bot! --Euryalus (talk) 09:44, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Prince of Wales (ship)[edit]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Prince of Wales (ship) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. Time2wait.svg This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Ealdgyth -- Ealdgyth (talk) 19:41, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Prince of Wales (ship)[edit]

The article Prince of Wales (ship) you nominated as a good article has passed Symbol support vote.svg; see Talk:Prince of Wales (ship) for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Ealdgyth -- Ealdgyth (talk) 21:41, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Language questions[edit]

I have probably language question regarding your oppose to clarify the Andy's restriction in the infoboxes case. English is not my first language, perhaps you make me understand better?

  • It's only a clarification of the restriction, not a "narrowing". As others pointed out, the case went through several "clarifications" and "enforcements", and the same thing happened again and again: no action.
  • I found Andy extremely collaborative and wonder where the idea that many don't comes from. Examples of collaboration: in 2013 he helped me to create {{infobox Bach composition}} and helped project opera to create {{infobox opera}} (note the last example with a portrait of self-irony, note also please that the reverted infoboxes of operas - little is it known that they were a reason to request the case - are on their way to be restored, look at Rigoletto and Don Carlos, look also in the talk archives if you see Andy acting disruptively). In 2015 he nominated for merge the 2007 {{infobox hymn}} with composition, helpful indeed. - As I said in the current clarification, the case failed to name evidence of disruption. The one diff given was uncollapsing an existing infobox and moving it to the normal position, and - as one 2013 candidate pointed out: that edit rather ended an edit war.

I worked on Kafka, and it helped to take the case, but I would love to ask the 2015 arb candidates a question which is not a third misunderstood edit by Andy ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:55, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi Gerda, am away from the PC for a few hours another few hours but will get back to you ASAP. -- Euryalus (talk) 23:01, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
Sorry for the delay, real life was a bit busy yesterday. will come back to you today. -- Euryalus (talk) 19:59, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
No rush, we are dealing with a mythical 10-years-war by now, + I am on vacation. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:10, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
... and in the mood for the lighter note: best remembered as a farce --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:45, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

ToQ100gou[edit]

His original talk page is protected. Also what is going to happen with that malformed AN3 report?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 09:19, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Have declined the AN3. --Euryalus (talk) 09:28, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
They are treating the malformed request as a proper discussion and have continued to raise questions,—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 10:12, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
Have closed the thread. -- Euryalus (talk) 11:19, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Peafowl[edit]

Well, shut my mouth! KDS4444Talk 05:17, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Heh. You did ask for it. -- Euryalus (talk) 05:19, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
(Hm. I suppose I did. Touché. And well-met, Euryaus.) KDS4444Talk 11:39, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 18[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

Greek city-state patron gods (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added links pointing to Thebes, Olympia, Alea and Syracuse

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:57, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks DPL bot! Euryalus (talk) 09:51, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Lack of adherence to PROD protocol in the deletion of the Anna Thomson page on 12:08 at 22 October 2014[edit]

G'day Euryalus. I am writing to you to let you know of my concern about the administrative decision, which according to the log page was made by you at 12:08 on 22 October 2014, to delete the Anna Thomson page on Wikipedia en using the Wikipedia process formerly known as PROD and now known as Wikipedia:Proposed_deletion.

In my view, whatever the notability or not of Anna Thomson (and this is now being debated, as it should have been prior to the decision to delete the page on 22 October), it was not appropriate for you, nor indeed for any other Wikipedia Administrator, to delete the page using the process described at Wikipedia:Proposed_deletion.

The reason for this is that the Wikipedia page at PROD states that, PROD must only be used if no opposition is to be expected. The article is marked for at least seven days; if nobody objects, it is considered by an uninvolved admin, who reviews the article and may delete it or may remove the PROD tag.

In my view, there were no reasonable grounds for a Wikipedia administrator to conclude in this case that no opposition was to be expected. In this instance, therefore, to delete this article in the manner in which it was done was unreasonable and unwarranted.

If Wikipedia:Proposed_deletion is not be abused by those seeking to circumvent the usual debate about whether or not to keep a page, then it is vital that Wikipedia:Proposed_deletion is only used when and only when 'no opposition is to be expected' as stated clearly in the Wikipedia rules.

In my view, on the face of it, the use of Wikipedia:Proposed_deletion in this case appears to have been an attempt to try to fly under the radar and circumvent the usual debate about whether or not to keep the page.

I set out my reasons below for why there were no reasonable grounds for a Wikipedia administrator to conclude that that no opposition was to be expected in the deletion of this article:

1. The first and most important reason why opposition should have been expected is that, as I write, there are six foreign-language Wikipedia pages for Anna Thomson (born Anna Kluger Levine on 18 September 1953 in New York City) aka Anna Levine, aka Anna Levine Thomson, aka Anna Thomson, aka Anna Thompson, aka Anna Levine Thompson.

In alphabetical order, the six foreign-language Wikipedia pages for Anna Thomson are in: Czech; Italian; Dutch; French; German, Spanish.

2. The second reason why opposition should have been expected is that there is an ' Interview biographie d'Anna Thomson' ('Interview biography of Anna Thomson') on INA at http://www.ina.fr/video/I08260832. Here, on 27 April 2002, Thomson was interviewed by Thierry Ardisson about her role in Bridget (2001).

3. The third reason why opposition should have been expected is that there is a Facebook fan page for Anna Thomson at https://www.facebook.com/anna.thomson.fanpage

4. The fourth reason why opposition should have been expected is that there is an IMDB page for Anna Thomson under her name of Anna Levine at http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0505764/

5. The fifth reason why opposition should have been expected is that Anna Thomson, who is 61 years old and still working as an actress, has fifty nine (59) credits to her name on her IMDB page (see above) dating from 1969 to 2012.

6. The sixth reason why opposition should have been expected is that, according to her IMDB entry, Anna Thomson 'Gained cult status among French movie experts due to her performance in Sue (1997)'. Sue (1997), was the first film in a 'Trilogy of Loneliness', all set in New York, starring Anna Thomson, directed by Amos Kollek. The second in the trilogy was 'Fiona' (1999). The third in the trilogy was Bridget (2002) (see http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bridget_(Film) ). See http://www.planet-interview.de/interviews/amos-kollek/34007/ for the interview with Amos Kolleck about the trilogy.

7. The seventh reason why opposition should have been expected is that Anna Thomson had a substantial role as 'Alexandra "Alex" Arnold' in Jaded (1996). Notable about the English Wikipedia page for Jaded is that out of the eleven actors listed in the Principal Cast, only Anna Levine (Anna Thomson) no longer had an entry following the deletion of the article about her on Wikipedia [en] on 22 October.

8. The eighth reason why opposition should have been expected is that Anna Thomson starred in 'Fast Food Fast Women' (2000) directed by Amos Kollek, and entered into the 2001 Festival de Cannes (Cannes Film Festival). See: a) http://www.nytimes.com/movies/movie/201743/Fast-Food-Fast-Women/overview b) http://www.nytimes.com/movies/person/97053/Amos-Kollek c) http://www.festival-cannes.com/en/archives/ficheFilm/id/5168/year/2000.html

9. The ninth reason why opposition should have been expected is that Anna Thomson starred as herself in 'A Bitter Glory' (2001), a documentary directed by Amos Kollek, produced by Arte France. The film is also known as 'Bitterer Ruhm'. It was filmed in New York and released on 11 December 2001 in France and in Germany.

10. The tenth reason why opposition should have been expected is that Anna Thomson had roles in two Clint Eastwood films, the character of 'Audrey' in 'Bird' (1988), and that of 'Delilah Fitzgerald' in 'Unforgiven' (1992). Thomson's role as 'Delilah Fitzgerald' was substantial, and played a key part in the development of the film's remarkable, haunting and unforgettable pathos.

I have taken some time to put together the ten reasons above in order to make clear to you my concern that this entry should not have been deleted using PROD now known as Wikipedia:Proposed_deletion. In my view, too many Wikipedia administrators are overzealous in their enthusiasm to delete Wikipedia pages on the grounds that a page fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. Sadly, this is yet one more example of this. 121.222.177.134 (talk) 02:48, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi, and thanks for the message. Some responses:
  • The process - The page was nominated for proposed deletion on 13 October 2014. A review of the page at the time of nomination indicates it comprised a list of film credits, some fairly minor (such as "Woman at basketball game" and "Following woman"), and referenced only to imdb. The article was deleted nine days later as an uncontested PROD with no reliable sources and an insufficient claim for notability
  • Sourcing - Per WP:RS/IMDB, imdb is unlikely to be a reliable source for claims regarding an actor's career or notability. Regrettably, nothing in the article indicated significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. Likewise, nothing indicated compliance with WP:NACTOR; such as significant (ie non-trivial) roles in multiple notable films; a large fan base, or an innovative or particularly prolific career.
  • Source checks - Please be assured that before I delete any expired PROD, I do check for available reliable sources that might support its retention. You provide a list of sources above - if I may, I'd say that Ms Thomson's Facebook page and imdb reference are not reliable, and the nytimes links seem to be to cast lists rather than to significant secondary coverage. However, some of the other points do suggest notability, in which case they should be added to the now undeleted article (for more on which see "Process" below). No source check is perfect and it is possible for any good-faith examination to miss materials, especially where they are not in English. Please accept my apologies if sources were missed in the source check at the time.
  • Process - A key feature of PRODs is that if editors later locate material that argues for notability, they can quickly and easily get the article undeleted via "Requests for undeletion." They can also simply ask the deleting admin, who will usually agree to undelete the article or send it to AfD. A review of my talkpage archives will show numerous occasiosn where I've undeleted articles on request, for example here and here. There are also numerous occasions where PRODs were declined.
  • Outcomes - As you have now contested the PROD, the article has been undeleted and you're free to add any additional material you choose. All the best for expanding and referencing the undeleted page. -- Euryalus (talk) 07:27, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Contaldo80's statement[edit]

I believe that Contaldo's statement in Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Christianity and Sexuality/Evidence belongs to any talk page of the case. He hasn't inserted evidence yet. --George Ho (talk) 10:17, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks George Ho, is late here so will have a look in the morning. -- Euryalus (talk) 12:45, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
Hi George Ho, have left a message on Contaldo80's talk page requesting that that he provide diffs to support his statement. He has not edited since that message, so will await his response when he returns. Thanks for raising this. -- Euryalus (talk) 06:32, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CVI, January 2015[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) 13:27, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Note[edit]

Before casting your vote in the Wifione case, please be sure to have read and understood this thread. If you have any questions, please ask. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 13:15, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. -- Euryalus (talk) 13:42, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Gamergate 1RR Remedy[edit]

May I ask why you support this for The Devil's Advocate, but oppose it for Ryulong? It seems like it would be open to being gamed in both instances. 192.249.132.237 (talk) 17:23, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the message.
First, please note I did not support one remedy over the other on the basis that any particular remedy might be gamed.
Second, as you probably know the committee considered private as well as public evidence, including private evidence submitted by some of the parties to the case. This public and private evidence was taken as a whole when considering the remedies. If a particular remedy appears stronger or weaker than another, relative to the Finding it draws upon, it may (or may not) be because that remedy is partly based on private evidence. I appreciate that this makes it difficult for the community to interpret the thinking behind every remedy, but regrettably that's the nature of private evidence. As a statement of the obvious, please be assured that where the committee chose to accept private evidence in this case, it did so advisedly and after considering issues to do with personal information and privacy, and the wishes of the person submitting the material.
Third, as you are also probably aware, remedies follow findings of fact and there is rarely an equivalence in findings that would lead to an equivalence in remedies. The remedy is tailored to the finding, which is based on the individual evidence. There are not blanket findings against everyone involved ("kill them all and let God sort it out") - each proposed remedy is considered on its own merits, relative to the public and private evidence. Or the short version - just because one person received a 1RR restriction based on the evidence against them, it does not follow that another person will receive a 1RR restriction based on an entirely different set of evidence.
Hope that's helpful, and sorry about the bureaucratic tone. -- Euryalus (talk) 00:17, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
I'm sorry! I didn't mean to question your decision, I just wanted to make sure the decision was consciously made instead of a simple oversight! I brought this up to Salvio, as he seemed to be voting against the remedy in general rather than applying it in this instance, and he did simply forget that 1RR was also in discussion for TDA, so I dropped a similar message to other arbs who voted against one but for the other. As long as your decision to vote this way was made knowingly rather than an oversight, I'm more than happy. Please enjoy the rest of your day, and I apologize again for pressuring you to justify yourself. 192.249.132.237 (talk) 00:29, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
Oh no worries, I'm not bothered at all. It's entirely appropriate that people question any or all decisions like this, so feel free to ask or disagree with anything you like and I'll do my best to offer answers. -- Euryalus (talk) 02:09, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Extend deadline[edit]

A case clerk of Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Christianity and Sexuality/Evidence is semi-active in my eyes. There will be more preparations for evidence, so will you extend deadlines for all phases please? --George Ho (talk) 10:20, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi George Ho, I saw your message re the deadline and have raised it with the Committee to collect their views. I'm not immediately inclined to support an extension (the usual six-week case length seems sufficient in most circumstances) but am interested in what additional evidence you feel will come in if we keep the Evidence phase open past Feb 2. If there's a good argument for extending the deadline, please let me know and I'll discuss it with the others. -- Euryalus (talk) 10:25, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
Roscelese requests raising a maximum limit at the Evidence talk page. I think that would be a reason to extend deadline, right? --George Ho (talk) 20:21, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
Hi, it appears we're talking about two different things - if so apologies for that. Roscelese has requested an extension of the word limit for her evidence, beyond the current 1000-limit that applies on the main Evidence page. That's not related to the time limit for submitting evidence, which is currently 2 Feb. I support a word limit extension, but will discuss it with other Committee members. I don't presently support a time limit extension, but am open to your or anyone else's views on the merits of doing so. -- Euryalus (talk) 21:32, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
I'd also consider requesting an extension of the time limit as well, for the same reason I initially requested an extension of the space limit (although you're right that my request did not cover this). Other than me, and the potential for extension from Callanecc, George, or Esoglou, we're still waiting on diffs from Contaldo's evidence and possible submission of evidence from Elizium, Kite, Padresfan, Binksternet, and Dominus (other users named as parties didn't submit a statement or declined involvement). –Roscelese (talkcontribs) 06:07, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
Hi Roscelese. Let me have a quick chat with the others and come back to you shortly. In passing im likely to also propose the removal of a couple of minor parties from the case, as they appear to be irrelevant to the evidence that has or is likely to be presented. But will post something about this on one of the case pages shortly. -- Euryalus (talk) 08:59, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
Would it be better if I posted a formal request at the case page? –Roscelese (talkcontribs) 17:43, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

"An entirely unhelpful response." - Nah, hey, couldn't ask for fairer! There's still time in the workshop, and I'd rather have your considered response than one on the fly that makes no sense. –Roscelese (talkcontribs) 06:49, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Precision.[edit]

I look forward to you participating in public deliberations in cases where there is no meaningful private evidence. Please be certain to ping me during the decade that happens. Thanks. Hipocrite (talk) 19:52, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Hope springs eternal, I guess. But yes, if this miracle occurs you will certainly be the first person I ping. -- Euryalus (talk) 20:37, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Good catch[edit]

Thank you ! Mlpearc (open channel) 17:57, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Hello[edit]

I don't really recall interacting with you in the past, but there are times I'm not around for a while too. I wanted to thank you for the note on the arbcom review page. I'm glad to see that I have some time to do some research. One question, and I can post on one of the talk pages if that's better: Will Arbcom be looking at other editor's behavior during this? I don't want to get anyone banned or sanctioned, but I do think it's important to show that Andy has been treated VERY poorly at times. Thanks. — Ched :  ?  14:21, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Salvio's oppose[edit]

Please consider the merits of Salvio's oppose. I think it's the best idea in front of the committee now for this situation and will help vastly address both peoples complaints. Nothing say it has to be a popular result but a fair result that benefits the encyclopedia that stops disruption is the way to go. Those sanctions of admin boards removal is something that has seemed to work well with Tarc. I would ddefintely sacrifice my pride for such an equitable result. It doesn't address the off wiki issues butI don't follow people on private websites and can easily ignore the attack page. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 14:16, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the message. Will likely vote in this tomorrow. -- Euryalus (talk) 14:22, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Withdrawal[edit]

I hope your withdrawal from drafting arbitrator is unrelated to any comment by me. I do not doubt your impartiality. Whatever is the problem that has made you go inactive, I hope you soon find it resolved in the most satisfactory way. Esoglou (talk) 16:32, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Esoglou, and certainly nothing to do with you. A family member is ill and I'm spending the next little while in hospital with them. In the circumstances I'm not sure I have the time to give the remainder of the case the attention it deserves. To avoid any delays in case finalisation I've withdrawn as a drafter to let others move it along in my absence. -- Euryalus (talk) 22:42, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
Hope they're feeling better!♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:58, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CVII, February 2015[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) 22:50, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Barnstar of Reversion Hires.png The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
Good job! ♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:54, 4 March 2015 (UTC)