User talk:Euryalus

Problematic edits

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

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)

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. 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)

The article Prince of Wales (ship) you nominated as a good article has passed ; 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

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

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

Well, shut my mouth! KDS4444^Talk 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.) KDS4444^Talk 11:39, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 18

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

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

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

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new Featured and A-Class content Book reviews: Jonas Vinther on Hitler and Cliftonian on the Rhodesia Regiment Interview: 2014 Military History Newcomer Award nominees Review essay: Nick-D on the Australian War Memorial Op-ed: TomStar81 on the birth of strategic bombing Timeline: This month in World War I

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

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

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

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 (talk ⋅ contribs) 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 (talk ⋅ contribs) 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 (talk ⋅ contribs) 06:49, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Precision.

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

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

Hello

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

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

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)

@Dr Blofeld:, sorry for the belated response, and thanks for the kind thoughts. All seems ok, a couple of weeks in hospital but we seem to have dodged any lasting problem. -- Euryalus2 (talk) 01:31, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CVII, February 2015

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new Featured and A-Class content Book review: Nick-D on the British Pacific Fleet Op-ed: TomStar81 looks at the advent of chemical warfare Timeline: This month in World War I

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!

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

Hounding discussion is closed

...so I thought it might be fine to contact you here on your talk page. I will impose an interaction ban upon myself for the purpose of promoting good faith on Wikipedia and to stop conflict between myself and the other editor involved in this issue. I had no idea I was disrupting the work of anyone. I fully intend not to edit any of the pages that the other edits on for a period of three months and to have no discussions with the other editor; edit the other editor's user and user talk space; reply to the other editor in discussions, make reference to or comment on the other editor anywhere on Wikipedia, whether directly or indirectly; or undo the other editor's edit to any page (whether directly or indirectly).

My current list of articles that the other editor either created, edits on, or is a major contributor to was necessary for me to compile for the purpose of avoiding unpleasant interactions, though at this point, that action of mine probably was also misinterpreted.

  Bfpage |leave a message  20:19, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

No worries . -- Euryalus (talk) 20:50, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

One serving of trout...

You're trying to ping a like 12 edit newbie?? Do you think they'll ever know what that little red number means??? Remember "user talk pages"? ;) Anyway, I've left a note for them User talk:Beauxlieux. NE Ent 23:48, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Mm, they found their way to the mysterious recesses of ARCA so I reckoned they would also be able to navigate the ping system. But thanks for leaving them a followup note as well. -- Euryalus (talk) 02:09, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Btw trouting doesnt work unless you actually include a fish image. -- Euryalus (talk) 02:10, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Who am us, anyway?

Did you recognize the origin of my username? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 14:30, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Um, no. I'm an eighteenth century RN ships guy, and I don't reckon it relates to that. :) Where's it from? -- Euryalus2 (talk) 01:28, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

It's from an old Firesign Theatre radio skit. The whole shebang:

At meeting from Collective Farm Group these prizes was being awarded for outstanding accomplishment.

The milkmaid, Anastasia, is receiving the prize of a hen and a rooster for caring for her hen so efficiently. After the award was announced there was great applause and music.

It was then announced that Petrov, the stable boy, would get a new suit for having raised a very fine prize horse. There was tremendous applause and music in honor of this award then.

Finally it was announced that Short Brigade Harvester Boris, for harvesting 390% more than his quota of grain, for working seven days from a week, for his high political acumen, and for setting 17 records for other workers to emulate, would get a Grand Prize: a complete set of the works of Lenin.

There was no applause and no music.

From one corner of the large room could be heard the whisper of one peasant to another: "It serves him right!"

I hope you liked it, despite having no Georgian nautical proclivities. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:51, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Multiple incorrect blocks

Greetings Euryalus.

Swarm blocked me today for edit warring. Despite I had made 2 reverts in 5 days and the concerning content was violating the WP:BLPCRIME, WP:COPYVIO, WP:NOTABILITY and other aspects that I have explained below.

I've been unblocked by Bgwhite, who termed it as an unwarranted block. The whole issue is bigger. Other blocks by Swarm includes:

• Vtk1987(2 reverts)
• Human3015(1 revert)
• Padeton(2 reverts)

While WP:ANEW requires 3-4 reverts in last 24 hours, Padenton was the one to address this edit war, he was discussing the issue and he was not going back to restore his version. They all were avoiding the violation of numerous polices that I have mentioned. They were equally opposing a 3rr evading IP who recently created a new account, TCKTKtool. He called other editor(Vtk1987) a sock and continued to violate these policies.

Reverting an obvious sock puppet is another exemption from 3rr. Proof of reverting the sock puppet was the ANEW thread itself where we had discussed the apparent sock puppetry.

When Swarm had already blocked me, he went back to change the block settings, for explaining the reason that why he was blocking. Is that enough for saying that his actions are riddled with faults? I don't think that Swarm had even thought of protecting the page, not even a non-admin editor would've thought of making 6 blocks even after agreeing that there was one person behind a account and IP.

I have to ask whether this regrettable incident should be addressed to ArbCOM. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 07:23, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

@OccultZone:, thanks for the message, will come back to you shortly. -- Euryalus (talk) 14:24, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

What you think about that? I had another incident of not only inappropriate block, but the blocking admin was involved and continuously made false allegations of me sending him and others "harassing emails", upon investigation(by a bureaucrat) he revealed nothing and went on to a break of 9 days, once he returned he took no responsibility, nor explained any of his actions. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 22:28, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CVIII, March 2015

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new Featured and A-Class content Book review: Recent external reviews Review essay: Nick-D on the Australian Fleet Air Arm Museum Op-ed: TomStar81 on submarine warfare in World War I Timeline: This month in World War I

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) 09:37, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

ARB list

Hi, Eurylalus - I don't quite understand what it means to leave me on the list or take me off? I've never done this before, so can you explain? When I said uninvolved, I meant that I never edited the article in question. Atsme☯^Consult 11:08, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Replied on the /Evidence talkpage. -- Euryalus (talk) 12:22, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Mail

Hello, Euryalus. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

. Buster Seven Talk 16:48, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Word limit on submission at Collect arbcom case

I see that MastCell has reduced the length of his submission, but he also went ahead and linked the full-length version. That's an end run around the already-extended word limit. Please correct it. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 12:16, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Belgium NFT (after substantial condensing)

Hi Euryalus, your advice was very welcome for the fine-tuning of the Belgium national football team article. A lot of editing and condensing (by using summary style and transferring tables and text to related articles) later, I brought the article down from +/- 127,5k to 106,5k. Sygmoral also did a great job, especially in making restructuring suggestions, changing formats and style adaptations. A couple of questions that remain:

• Any other suggestions when you take a quick look at the current article page?
• How do you think the readable prose is exactly measured - and what is the result you obtain if you apply it? If I get it well, <50 kB readable prose is "always ok", between 50 and 60 kB is often still acceptable. When copying it into a Word file, I came to +/- 5700 words, which should correspond to roughly 35-40 kB. When I stored the document (only the visible prose, so not the citations and hyperlinks) I even came to 29,8 kB. I had some difficulties with Dr pda's tool so used another one, but this did not "capture" the sentences after the bullets.
• You already brought an article towards FA. I presume best is to try it step by step, first trying GA nomination then FA - any advice you can give me about getting it reviewed for GA?

Friendly regards, Kareldorado (talk) 15:40, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

While Searching for the Diff

I found this which pertains to something different. When he followed me to the help desk. But I share it with you because I think it shows my diplomacy and maturity. I.m still searching for my personal request to him. I'm sure I'll finf\d it soon. . Buster Seven Talk 04:46, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

• Again, not exactly what I'm looking for, but I"m getting closer. I'm asking him to go his way and I'll go mine and hopefully we don't meet. . Buster Seven Talk 05:16, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
• Here I mention an Olive Branch

Mail

Hello, Euryalus. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Alerting you just in case you won't receive my comment until significantly later because you don't check your email as often as others do or because your Wikipedia email is different than your regular email. Flyer22 (talk) 13:05, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

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

Dramabeans

Thanks for patrolling Dramabeans, wrt your concerns in the edit summary; a preview of Why Do Dramas Do That is available on Amazon (use ASIN B00FJXQ476 or ISBN9780986059803 to find it) , in the section Why do Korean dramas insist on the live-shoot? Don't people get tired? ( no numbered pages in the preview but I reckon its 6 or 7) a paragraph reads

Producers and writers will commonly follow fan reactions via message boards and fan cafes, keeping tabs on what their fans want from the show. Minor characters who stir unexpected response with viewers have routinely been given expanded roles. Or perhaps a second lead sparks more sympathy than the hero, causing lovelines to change direction mid-drama. We've even had the strange experience of reading Dramabeans comments (you know, the stuff you guys write) translated into Korean and posted on Korean drama fan sites—that is, Korean reactions to English reactions of Korean dramas recapped in English for non-Korean viewers. In short, drama-makers care what viewers think and will often pay fanservice to satisfy viewer desires, whether or not those viewers reside in Korea.

However, it is from a publication by the subject of the article in question, and I was unwilling to use it as a source. I respect the removal of any and all material which isn't verified, but just wanted to let you know that I wasn't making it up.--KTo288 (talk) 13:15, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

@KTo288: No problems, I certainly didn't mean to suggest I thought it was untrue, just unsourced. It's a pretty good article, well done on creating it. -- Euryalus (talk) 15:06, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the compliment, and thanks again for approving it, time for me to leave it now and see how it fares on its own.--KTo288 (talk) 15:18, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 19

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Manjapra Mohan, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Carnatic (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) 09:00, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Disruptive Maryland IP

You have made my day. Blessed relief! Thank you for your support, particularly your offer to protect some of the impacted articles. From direct experience, these three especially have suffered repeated trauma at the hands of the individual in question: List of Downton Abbey episodes, List of Downton Abbey characters, and Downton Abbey. Interest in these articles is high. On average, they are collectively being viewed about 12,000 times per day and clearly matter to a lot of people. I will certainly notify you at the first sign of renewed disruption. Thank you again, and best wishes. Hertz1888 (talk) 18:27, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Atomic Meltdown

Hi Euryalus, if you could please include any CU notes you might have on the Atomic Meltdown socks, that would be appreciated. Link here. Related ANI here. Danke, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:21, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Request

Hi Euryalus, per a discussion at BD2412's talk page, I wonder if you could please cast my vote for me on the HRC move request, as I will be "out of pocket" for a week starting Sunday. I support the move, mainly because of conciseness, preciseness, and naturalness which are all emphasized in the "nutshell" of article title policy (though they weren't a year ago). Thanks.Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:48, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Never mind, I managed.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:54, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CIX, April 2015

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new Featured and A-Class content Book reviews: Nick-D looks at the landing at Anzac Cove Op-ed: TomStar81 on the debut of poison gas in World War I Timeline: This month in World War I

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) 06:32, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Precious again

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)

A year ago, you were the 870th recipient of my PumpkinSky Prize, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:29, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Regarding your question: on top of the two interests mentioned in the amendment request, I have this possibly strange desire to have similar articles look similar, for example the hymns in List of hymns by Martin Luther (work in progress Komm, Gott Schöpfer, Heiliger Geist). I hope that I will know to accept inconsistency better. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:04, 11 May 2015 (UTC)--Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:04, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

@Gerda Arendt: Thanks, have supported lifting the restriction per the commitment to consensus. I can honestly say I have added Infoboxes to the vast majority of articles I've created - they are essential in ship and port articles, and a generally useful part of geography and biography ones. But if course I wouldn't if consensus was on the other side. -- Euryalus (talk) 13:11, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

I wrote the above while you supported ;) - I agree, completely. Never ever did I add an infobox where I expected no consensus. Sometimes I was wrong. After seven masses by Schubert, one by Mozart seemed only logical. I suggested one for Bach after the discussion on Robert Stoepel had lead to accepting. The popular belief that I suggested one for Wagner right before TFA appearance is wrong, - I said from the start to keep it on the talk, following the recommendation by an arbitrator (which he regretted later but how would I have known that). What's left of my alleged battleground behaviour? - True, I fight - for good treatment of editors who have no idea of a conflict, see Chopin and Beethoven, two examples of too many. Their good-faith edits should not be reverted with edit summaries they possibly don't even know to find. I remember that it took me a while to discover article history and talk. An new editor adding an infobox to a composer is not in a battle, he just copies from sculptors, architects and scientists. AGF would help in many of these situations. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:03, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Talkpage quote

Thank you for, at the very least, acknowledging it. I realize that I am, perhaps, the only one that finds issue with it. At the conclusion of the case, depending on the result, I may ask for advice as to where to pursue the issue. Of course, the easiest solution would be for the editor in question to simply remove the offending material. That would require AGF which is in short supply on some talk pages of WP. . Buster Seven Talk 15:23, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

I have requested, in a very humble and genuine way, on the editors talk page that he kindly remove the offending material. I hope he can be magnanimous. . Buster Seven Talk 03:13, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

A friendly stalker at that talk page, acting as a proxy, has removed the material. Yhank you. . Buster Seven Talk 11:21, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Beat me to it. -- Euryalus (talk) 12:11, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Euryalus. You have new messages at Callanecc's talk page.
Message added 03:36, 3 May 2015 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

RGloucester — ☎ 03:36, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Something for you to look it, if possible

I assume that you're swamped with Arb stuff at this point, but I wonder if you have an hour or so to spare to close a long-running thread on AN/I?

This has to the with the Interarction Ban between Alansohn and Magnolia677. (That thread is here.) Very soon after that, Alansohn was accused of breaking the ban, and the consensus at that time was that it was accidental and should not result in a sanction. You closed that thread here, which is why I'm bringing this to you now.

When Alansohn was once again accused of violating the ban, it set off a very long thread which has twice been returned from the archives (once by me) in order to be closed. That thread [1] remains unclosed, and I'm contacting you to see if you have the time and energy to close it. At this point, although I definitely expressed in the thread a view about what I thought the outcome should be, I'm not particularly concerned about how it is closed, just that it be put out of its misery.

I fully understand if you'd prefer not to do this, or if you simply don't have the time, but I thought it was worth the effort to see if you could. One way or the other, best, BMK (talk) 16:37, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for what I think is a fair synopsis of that very convoluted discusssion. Next up for you: untangling the Middle East. BMK (talk) 23:11, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Didn't take long: 4 hours and 6 minutes between your close and the first report by one of the subjects. Yikes! Not asking you to do anything, just commenting on the silliness of Wiki-life. Best, BMK (talk) 01:49, 5 May 2015 (UTC)