This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
7&6=thirteen (☎) has given you a Dobos torte to enjoy! Seven layers of fun because you deserve it.
To give a Dobos torte and spread the WikiLove, just place {{subst:Dobos Torte}} on someone else's talkpage, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.
Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hello, Euryalus. Please check your email; you've got mail! Message added 07:06, 16 January 2018 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
Thanks, replied. -- Euryalus (talk) 08:46, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
Ahmet Gueye
Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hi Euryalus, I'd like to dispute the prod on Ahmet Gueye, which you deleted in 2014. Will you please restore it?--TM 13:16, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
Hi, had a look, the 2014 article is not notable, but I've undeleted and userfied it at User:Namiba/Ahmet Gueye in case there's more you'd like to add. Once you think an amended version would meet WP:GNG, please feel free to move it back to article space. -- Euryalus (talk) 23:42, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
Latest comment: 6 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Out of sheer curiosity, why did you tag for U1 and not just delete it yourself? ansh666 21:56, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Hi. I feel like its best practice not to use tools on matters that closely connected to my own editing, even in pretty trivial cases. Also avoids conspiracy theories. If you were the one who deleted it (I haven't checked the log) then thanks for the janitoring. -- Euryalus (talk) 22:19, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Ah, I see. Thanks, ansh666 23:58, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Recovery of an old user space draft in a topic banned topic
Latest comment: 6 years ago8 comments3 people in discussion
Hi Euryalus, I don't know if you remember but you are the closing admin for an ANI indef topic ban against me. Anyway I have a user space draft in this topic area which I made for purposes of reference for discussions here in wikipedia. It got auto deleted after six months.
I thought I had an off site backup of the wiki text but I can't find it.
I wish to use this text in another wiki.
Would it be possible to ask for it to be recovered, or is this complicated? It is not a big deal at all, and I can reconstruct most of it - indeed, sometimes it is useful to write an article again from scratch. But if it is easy to recover it, I'd appreciate it. I did actually post a recovery request but then I realized soon after that it was probably a violation of my ban to do so, as it is broadly construed, and so immediately reverted that edit. Thanks! Robert Walker (talk) 20:53, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
Doesn't the topic ban just cover editing Wikipedia, not copying material off Wikipedia for use elsewhere? Darkfrog24 (talk) 21:40, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
Yes of course there is no problem copying it over. The issue is that to ask for it to be recovered I have to give the name of the article which is on the topic that I'm banned for. Since my topic ban is broadly construed I think I needed to ask @Euryalus: about this, to be safe. Robert Walker (talk) 22:00, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
Hi Robert and Darkfrog24. Is it User:Robertinventor/Essay on Reliable Sources in Buddhism and a Proposal? For the benefit of talkpage stalkers, its a lengthy userpage essay on how en-WP's privileging of western sources as RS affects the content of Buddhism articles, and how the dividing line between primary and secondary sourcing is not always rigorously applied on these pages. Forgive me Robert if that's not sufficiently accurate as a paraphrase - I don't have any expertise in this area and its challenging to summarise so long a page into one sentence.
If that's the piece you're referring to then while its content looks fine as a userspace draft, continuing to edit it on en-WP would breach the topic ban. However it looks like you've put a lot of work into it, and I can certainly email you a copy so you can take it elsewhere or work on it offline. Let me know if that sounds ok. -- Euryalus (talk) 22:16, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
Hi Euryalus That's perfect thanks! Yes that's the one. There is no need to restore it to my user space here if you can email me a copy. Thanks so much. :) Robert Walker (talk) 06:44, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
And yes that's a good summary of it and that is why I am interested in a copy of it for discussion and possible use in another wiki where I am not topic banned :). Robert Walker (talk) 06:45, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
Done, per WP:REFUND. And nice to hear from you again after all this time. -- Euryalus (talk) 06:51, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
Wonderful, received and imported successfully into the other wiki. And nice to hear from you again also. Robert Walker (talk) 10:05, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
Latest comment: 6 years ago7 comments3 people in discussion
Euryalus, do you see anything on the WP:CheckUser tying J.M.Ike to Zumoarirodoka so that I can go ahead and tag the account as a Zumoarirodoka sock? Per the evidence I listed in that section, the account is obviously a Zumoarirodoka sock. I also see Zumoarirodoka editing as an IP. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 07:52, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
Hi, long time no speak. Alas I'm not familiar with this one and User:Zumoarirodoka would be stale. @Berean Hunter: does this suspected association ring any bells with you, as blocking CU for J.M.Ike? -- Euryalus (talk) 11:00, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
The two accounts that I confirmed belong to one of the meatpuppets in the Liborbital SPI case. The CU logs for Zumoarirodoka show an IP (but no UA) that is a static cable assignment from a different ISP than the confirmed socks are using. Geolocation shows that Zumoarirodoka would be 140 miles apart from one of J.M.Ike's locations and about 100 miles from the other but that isn't necessarily current regarding Zumoarirodoka because it is stale information. It is a behavioral call. — Berean Hunter(talk) 12:54, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for the further information, Berean Hunter. I believe that the behavioral evidence is strong. I'm familiar with Zumoarirodoka, and the articles he created are barely edited. Despite these articles being barely edited, the new account came along and focused on these barely edited articles that Zumoarirodoka created. But if you and Euryalus are uncomfortable with tagging the J.M.Ikeaccount as a Zumoarirodoka sock, I'll let it go for now...until I see another registered account with the same interests and editing pattern. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 17:21, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
Or unless I'm reporting a Zumoarirodoka IP (although I know that a CheckUser won't publicly tie the IP to any account, under usual circumstances anyway). Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 17:24, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
And one more thing: Editors usually do not focus on the Pedophilia FAQ on the Pedophilia talk page. In the Talk:Pedophilia/FAQ's revision history, you can see that aside from established editors Legitimus, Zad68, Johnuniq and myself, that FAQ has been barely edited. The Zumoarirodoka account had been editing for a year, but I questioned Zumoarirodoka's newness. The FAQ was also edited by one of Tisane's socks -- Yev Yev. So when new account J.M.Ike came along and focused on the FAQ, something that Zumoarirodoka had also done at Talk:Pedophilia/FAQ, I knew that it was highly likely that I was dealing with a sock. I then glanced at J.M.Ike's contributions and his editing style and pattern immediately led me to identify him as Zumoarirodoka. After looking some more, I saw that he had even taken to focusing on articles that the Zumoarirodoka account had created. You both might also be interested in this discussion I had with Zumoarirodoka. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 17:55, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
No objection from me concerning the tagging. The analysis may be better documented in an SPI case the next time you have reason to file a report. Non-Cu admins are a bit freer to discuss locations/IPs and the behavioral analysis that you get from them might be less cryptic. ;) — Berean Hunter(talk) 15:49, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
JonFX
Latest comment: 6 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion
Need you to state why you deleted JonFX page, been a wiki member for many years with many hits especially in the reggae genre and now in mainstream trap etc...
Please explain your real reason for influencing such a bias decision Mixahead (talk) 09:30, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
I would like to request if you could create a page for JonFX Mixahead (talk) 11:09, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
He asked Bbb23 what the cost would be. Doug Wellertalk 11:26, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
Hi Mixahead, and thanks for the message. You don't need my permission to recreate this page, but I'm certainly not going to do it for you. It's been deleted multiple times (including twice at AfD) because the subject is not notable enough for an encyclopedia entry. The last person to create it also appears to be an undisclosed paid editor who was blocked for sockpuppetry. Despite the above, if you believe Jon FX is notable enough for a Wikipedia entry then feel free to write one. But as a mild piece of advice, bear in mind it will probably be deleted again unless it includes evidence of significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. Also if you're paying a third party to write it you're probably wasting your money - better to research and write the article yourself. -- Euryalus (talk) 23:29, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
FYI about WT:ACN
Latest comment: 6 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
Hey, in the course of declining Rationalobserver's block appeal, you removed a couple lines that help bots link to archived announcements and some other technical stuff. Just wanted to know that I've put those back; but if you actually wanted to have those gone, please feel free to revert. Best, Kevin (aka L235·t·c) 23:40, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
sigh* Thanks, the perils of doing things on ipads. -- Euryalus (talk) 23:50, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
And, I want to say, the whole thing was a farce. It needs to be put out again, this time with strict admonishments to admins to behave within the policies of WP. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 22:45, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
How strange, that in my mad-hatter search for ";p" emoticons to remove, I should find ";p" ! Is it possible the browser/editor/amanuensis decided that when you typed "]]," (or whatever) that you _really_ meant the emoticon ";p" ? Shenme (talk) 05:04, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
@Shenme: That may indeed be the only entirely accidental typing of ;p on en-wiki. Perhaps, tired of these obscure sailing ship articles, my PC has decided they need enlivening with random emoticons and is inserting them without my knowledge. Yes, it was supposed to be "]]," - thanks for fixing it and good luck with your continued emoticon eradication campaign. -- Euryalus (talk) 05:10, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue CXLII, February 2018
Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article HMS Lizard (1757) 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 Ultimograph5 -- Ultimograph5 (talk) 21:01, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
The article HMS Lizard (1757) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:HMS Lizard (1757) 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 Ultimograph5 -- Ultimograph5 (talk) 00:02, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
@Ultimograph5: Thanks for the kind words, and also for the shoret lead-time on the review! Only posted it at GAN a few days ago. -- Euryalus (talk) 01:21, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Question
Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Just so I'll know - forgive me but it's a booger keeping up with the many different processes we must follow to find information. There was no link to to this information. Can you please point me in the right direction? It would be much appreciated!! Atsme📞📧 02:54, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
Hi Atsme, thanks for the message. What sort of info are you looking for? -- Euryalus (talk) 04:38, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
If an editor is sick...
Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
If an editor is sick and has been battling a life-threatening illness on and off for sometime and doesn't know how long they have left, it is fine for that editor to make requests for how they want their user page/user talk page retained, right? I know that after an editor dies and it's made public (as in other Wikipedians are told of it), their user page/user talk page is protected. But what about before that happens? You can email if you think it's best to discuss this via email. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 07:49, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
I'd think so, but don't know the context. An email does sound like a good idea, given the subject and possible privacy issues. -- Euryalus (talk) 12:08, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
Assistance required
Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hi there. I picked your name from Wikipedia:WikiProject Arab world/Members, assuming that you are familiar with topics from this WP. A new user, Osama Baqir, has been tagging a score of Iraq-related articles per WP:A7 and I can't really tell if they are correct because I can't read the sources. Judging from their interactions, a couple of those might well be in retaliation to IamIRAQI nominating one of their articles for deletion. Could you take a look? Regards SoWhy 10:52, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
I believe the article is ready to be reviewed now. As for their other objections, I commented here: Talk:Erich Hoepner#Recent edit and Commissar order. I've had similar discussions with the same editor, and in all cases, I've found their arguments lacking. Samples:
Please let me know if you may have any questions about this. --K.e.coffman (talk) 20:32, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
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 remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
G'day all, please be advised that throughout April 2018 the Military history Wikiproject is running its annual backlog elimination drive. This will focus on several key areas:
tagging and assessing articles that fall within the project's scope
adding or improving listed resources on Milhist's task force pages
updating the open tasks template on Milhist's task force pages
creating articles that are listed as "requested" on the project's various lists of missing articles.
As with past Milhist drives, there are points awarded for working on articles in the targeted areas, with barnstars being awarded at the end for different levels of achievement.
The drive is open to all Wikipedians, not just members of the Military history project, although only work on articles that fall (broadly) within the scope of military history will be considered eligible. This year, the Military history project would like to extend a specific welcome to members of Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red, and we would like to encourage all participants to consider working on helping to improve our coverage of women in the military. This is not the sole focus of the edit-a-thon, though, and there are aspects that hopefully will appeal to pretty much everyone.
The drive starts at 00:01 UTC on 1 April and runs until 23:59 UTC on 30 April 2018. Those interested in participating can sign up here.
Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
I was surprised to see a notability tag on Tough Boris. I have removed it given that it's a full fledged work by a highly notable author and the notability is established from the reviews cited on the page. Let me know if you saw other issues. (Please ping me as I will not be monitoring this page). Barkeep49 (talk) 19:32, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue CXLIIV, April 2018
Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
On behalf of the Milhist coordinators, you are hereby awarded the WikiChevrons for reviewing a total of two Milhist articles at PR, GAN, ACR or FAC during the period January to March 2018. Thank you for supporting Wikipedia's quality content processes. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 09:35, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
Edpostingforever
Latest comment: 6 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
Hi, you recently blocked Edpostingforever but they are continuing to be disruptive on their talk page. Would it be possible to revoke their talk page access? RA0808talkcontribs 23:58, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
Done, though it's sometimes easier just to ignore vandals reposting this kind of nonsense on their own talk pages. -- Euryalus (talk) 00:02, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for doing that. I am familiar with WP:DENY and that it can be easier to ignore them, but in this case I feel that if the user were left to their own devices they would keep at it... and it's better to just put a stop to it. In any case... thanks again! RA0808talkcontribs 00:12, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
No worries. -- Euryalus (talk) 00:14, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue CXLIV, May 2018
Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
misguided edit at emu war - there's a fortune to be made - if it was money JarrahTree 05:04, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
@JarrahTree: Feathers, perhaps? There's an academic study to be done in how so many people can independently find amusement in the same entry-level joke. -- Euryalus (talk) 06:57, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
:( 09:02, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
ygm
Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
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 remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Saw your note at ARCA, I am not appealing for just myself but rooting for a general appeal against the decision (the whole decision ought to be nullified). I am not posting there and I am sure others are not posting for the same reason as there was a doubt left regarding topic ban violation after the note by Bu Rob13 regarding the same. Once it is clear that it is not a topic violation for us to post there then we can resume that and I can definitely bring forth more evidence as to how the process was flawed and why en masse topic bans were not necessary. If the committee decides to entertain individual appeals whether as part of an en masse or as separate appeals, it would mean that the committee already declared the decision to topic ban ten editors en masse a valid decision. We need to first decide the validity of that whole decision before we can move to the appeals phase. There are some serious questions raised as to how things were handled. Individual appeal might be an easier option for me but I do not want that as I am concerned that if that whole AE decision gets a validity, it would set a wrong precedent for years to come and it would be disastrous for Wikipedia so we must decide the fate of the whole decision first. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 08:22, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
Cleanup request
Latest comment: 5 years ago8 comments3 people in discussion
About this ANI (re me) you closed. You added the result to [1]. Earlier in that ANI I got a different ban, intended to stop me from editing elsewhere until the ANI was solved by Alex Shih. (This ban itself was superseeded by a total block BTW).
Since your conclusion closes the ANI thread, I understand that the earlier ban (the Alex Shih diff) has ended implicitly & intentionally. I want to ask you to remove it from this page. (Technically, I am violating it ...). - DePiep (talk)
+ Thank you for your careful ANI closing. For me not nice to read of course (I did expect), but the fact that you read & handled it carefully makes it all good. - DePiep (talk) 22:14, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
Please take a look at this. DePiep (talk) 01:57, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
Hi DePiep - sorry for the delay, been away for work. Don't worry re violating the temporary ban by posting here - standard ban exceptions cover the asking of legitimate questions regarding the ban. Alex Shih, for reference it seems DePiep's argument is that the temporary ban was until there was further discussion regarding their editing, and that this further discussion occurred during the late-May ANI. It seems a reasonable point, but I haven't yet looked into the background of your temporary ban and whether it related to editing patterns that weren't discussed in the longer ANI review. Views welcome either way. -- Euryalus (talk) 08:09, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
Looks like Beyond My Ken took care of it. For the record that was my understanding too, a temporary ban that was superseded. Alex Shih (talk) 10:30, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
Indeed: [2], and with the same reasoning. Thanks all. - DePiep (talk) 12:03, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
@DePiep: apologies again for the delay. -- Euryalus (talk) 12:09, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
No problem. I did not feel insecure (but I was violating that bit, elsewhere ;-) ). Were I troubled, I'd have asked elsewhere or so. Closed. - DePiep (talk) 18:44, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
Away for a week
Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Back in 16th June. -- Euryalus (talk) 13:19, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue CXLVI, June 2018
Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Latest comment: 5 years ago12 comments2 people in discussion
It has nearly been 6 months since the site ban was lifted. As the ban was lifted at 17:47, 31 December 2017, presumably the earliest I could appeal would be 17:47, 1 July 2018, I can do a few hours later. I assume that this comment by Callanecc (talk·contribs) doesn't apply, and I would need to appeal them, or will they become automatically suspended. Crouch, Swale (talk) 05:15, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
@Crouch, Swale: thanks for the message. The restrictions don't automatically expire, the 6 months reference is the date after which an appeal can be lodged. I'll review the edit history over the next little while and comment at the ARCA. -- Euryalus (talk) 08:02, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
Thanks I assumed that would be the case, its just that the above comment suggested thoughts of having them automatically expiring. Crouch, Swale (talk) 08:25, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
No worries. I confess I haven't spent any time looking at your editing since the original ban appeal, but will set to it shortly. I note a comment at the ARCA re some sockpuppetry at Simple, does this all date from some years ago? -- Euryalus (talk) 08:30, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
Scratch that last bit, I see you've already replied there. -- Euryalus (talk) 08:33, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
As I noted, please don't be alarmed if I don't make any comments until the 7th. I might be away thanks. Crouch, Swale (talk) 11:49, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
I am extremely disappointed, I thought the whole point of the whole 6 months is that the restriction would be over, but it looks like all that will happen is the discussions on geographical NC. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:20, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
@Crouch, Swale: Thanks for the message, and I can understand your disappointment. Most sanctions are indefinite, which means they apply until it can be reasonably demonstrated that the disruption that inspired them will no longer occur. In your case you've displayed significant positives, including largely civil interaction with others even where you disagree, collaboration on some articles, and an obvious commitment to contributing to the encyclopedia. If I can speak a little bluntly, the principal drawback is the fair prospect that if sanctions were lifted you'd immediately return to creating micro-stubs on places of marginal notability, and to somewhat disruptively arguing the toss on page moves and naming conventions regardless of any community consensus. I note this is not a uniform reflection of every edit you've made, and there is at least some degree of Arbcom support for removing the RM restriction. So there's progress being made.
But if you want my advice, perhaps spend the next few months adding significant content to existing articles and/or contributing in other unrelated aras of Wikipedia, and see how it goes. There are millions of articles out there, most still need significant work. The inability to create new pages on civil parishes or related topics doesn't impede your ability to engage with the rest of Wikipedia and to add to the sum of centrally recorded knowledge. If the RM discussions anction is removed, please feel free to add share your expertise in these areas in those conversations. And then come back in six months and outline why lifting the page creation ban will demonstrably not lead to a recurrence of previous concerns. -- Euryalus (talk) 03:33, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
Yes most sanctions are indefinite but it really should depend on how restrictive that is, the 2 things that I am mostly interested in is creating new pages and NC. It could instead have been something like I can only create articles on CPs and I am subject to 1RR with moves. Which would have been a reasonable expectation from the suggested restrictions that you made prior to the unban in 2017. Or that the restrictions could be appealed after 1 month as long as I had demonstrated improvement. Both the severity and the length of time that I can appeal is too high.
I have already done that a bit but that's kind of putting the tail before the dog, we should expect that we have an article on every clearly notable topic before we even thing about improving similar articles. I'd note that I have suggested that some types of articles should be created by a bot like User:Rambot. I would also point out that lists at Template:Suburb lists in Australia have missing articles which maybe could also be done that way. As I can see you do a lot of work with Australia. Crouch, Swale (talk) 08:14, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
@Crouch, Swale: Thanks for the message. I've never understood why creating a new article is more satisfying than adding material to existing ones, but I appreciate that plenty of people do feel that way. It might be useful to make your suggestions above at the ARCA page and see if there's support for them.
As above I reckon there's a chance the ARCA might lead to the discussion ban being lifted. But we're not close to lifting the ban on new article creation because it appears it will lead directly back to mass creation of non-notable microstubs with dubious categorisation and naming. There is a role for stubs but you'd need to show more evidence that the ones you want to make have any notability, and yu'd also need to show evidence that you )or anyone) was going toe xpand at some of them into more useful articles. Further, you'd need to respect consensus in naming and cagtegorisation - and argue for change through the usual processes. I don't see these as huge asks, but to use an increasingly elderly meme , your milage may vary. Absent that, restoring access to new page creation just enables the disruptive behaviour that attracted sanctions in the first place. -- Euryalus (talk) 04:43, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
I think its likely that the discussion ban will be lifted and while that's a lot better it still doesn't resolve the missing topics. The discussion has now moved on. I posted the suggestion here and if I suggest again it might look like bludgeoning. The "only civil parish" and 1RR would surely address some concerns but I haven't un reverted moved on Commons without discussion anyway. It might be worth being more straight forward with this such as the articles would be better created by others, or it being impractical and the moves are likely to cause more problems that its worth, rather than keeping the issue hanging, suggesting that maybe I should just be site banned again. If I was to be site banned would that have to come from the AC or could that come from a community discussion, or presumably I could just request a site ban. Crouch, Swale (talk) 08:49, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue CXLVII, July 2018
Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Can you please take a look at the edits by Mckhan, the user added links that defames this organization with false statements. This is a wikipedia libel concern. It should be removed. [3]70.162.83.250 (talk) 00:55, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hi. I don't know why you would accuse me of being a sock if you already checked me for that a long time ago. Don't you think you are biased if every time someone argues with what is up on Wikipedia you accuse them of being a sock. Seriously isn't it biased?
Truly if Wikipedia works this way it is not a reliable source of information. Samsparky (talk) 12:26, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue CXLVIII, August 2018
Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Wikiproject Military history coordinator election nominations open
Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Nominations for the upcoming project coordinator election are now open. A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next year. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. More information on being a coordinator is available here. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 UTC on 14 September! Voting doesn't commence until 15 September. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the coord team. Cheers, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:53, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
Query
Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hi Euryalus, I have been attempting to add information to a number of articles that an editor has objected to based on being Victorian era sources. Can they object based on this, as I am not a scholar and am attempting to find sources that are relevant, however a lot of sources are of the Victorian era. I don't want to get into a edit war with the other editor. See recent edit history for Robert fitzRoger and William de Chesney (sheriff). Your thoughts? Regards Newm30 (talk) 00:17, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
@Newm30: Thanks for the message and sorry for the delayed reply.
As a general statement: There's certainly nothing wrong with Victorian-era sources per se and we've all likely used sources much older than these where they were the best, or the only ones available. However as a statement of the obvious, all sources need a commonsense review for the biases or historical blindnesses of their authors: to pick a random example a Victorian view of Australian Aboriginal anthropology would be useless for anything other than understanding the prejudices of Victorian-era people; while an equivalent source on the date of birth of a local politician would be as valid today as when prepared.
If you feel an older source is referencing uncontroversial facts; or is otherwise scholarly, contextually appropriate and not subject to bias or the need for a longer historical lens, then I'd be guided by WP:RS AGE:
With regard to historical events, older reports (closer to the event, but not too close such that they are prone to the errors of breaking news) tend to have the most detail, and are less likely to have errors introduced by repeated copying and summarizing. However, newer secondary and tertiary sources may have done a better job of collecting more reports from primary sources and resolving conflicts, applying modern knowledge to correctly explain things that older sources could not have, or remaining free of bias that might affect sources written while any conflicts described were still active or strongly felt.
On the specific examples you include: I have no experience in medieval history so it's hard to form an opinion of the specific sources in the articles you mention. But as you and Ealdgyth are both clearly editing them in good faith, all I can suggest is that you start a discussion of the issue on the article talkpages and see if that teases out why they see these particular sources as subpar or potentially bettered by later scholarship.
Hope that is of some minor use as a third opinion, and all the best with editing in this space. -- Euryalus (talk) 05:21, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue CXLIX, September 2018
Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
G'day everyone, voting for the 2018 Wikiproject Military history coordinator tranche is now open. This is a simple approval vote; only "support" votes should be made. Project members should vote for any candidates they support by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September 2018. Thanks, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:35, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
Milhist coordinator election voting has commenced
Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
G'day everyone, voting for the 2018 Wikiproject Military history coordinator tranche is now open. This is a simple approval vote; only "support" votes should be made. Project members should vote for any candidates they support by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September 2018. Thanks, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:22, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
Note: the previous version omitted a link to the election page, therefore you are receiving this follow up message with a link to the election page to correct the previous version. We apologies for any inconvenience that this may have caused.
Have your say!
Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hi everyone, just a quick reminder that voting for the WikiProject Military history coordinator election closes soon. You only have a day or so left to have your say about who should make up the coordination team for the next year. If you have already voted, thanks for participating! If you haven't and would like to, vote here before 23:59 UTC on 28 September. Thanks, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:29, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue CL, October 2018
Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Latest comment: 5 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
Would you please consider running for ArbCom again? We need good, experienced, sensible Arbs like yourself. Right now there are only three candidates running to fill six positions, and two of those running are not even admins. I hope you will consider serving again, if you are able. The deadline for nominations is in several days. Thank you. Softlavender (talk) 10:44, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for the vote of confidence. But not this time - I've been on Arbcom on and off since 2015 so it's time for a break. Speaking only for myself I'm not sure that consecutive terms are a great idea. The committee benefits from institutional memory but it's also good to clear space for new voices.
Regardless, all the best to all candidates in the race; Arbcom is certainly an interesting experience! -- Euryalus (talk) 23:13, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
not enough appropriate emojis on wikipedia to respond to that comment JarrahTree 00:54, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
Happy Adminship Anniversary
Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hello, Euryalus. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Latest comment: 5 years ago8 comments3 people in discussion
Since its less that 23 days until the appeal time do you have any questions, comments or advice regarding the appeal. I think the restrictions have been in place much too long now and any attempt to reinstate my geographical naming convention ban could probably be rejected per WP:SNOW. While I understand that the restrictions are there to keep problems away, the main point of the original appeal was to create/move pages. On User:Crouch, Swale/To do I have identified missing articles, but some further down as noted I will need to check for notability. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:56, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
Hi Crouch, Swale. Sorry, I don't really have any useful advice to offer. The appeal will be heard by the next Committee, so I'll leave it to them to offer any comments. Good luck with it - for all the past problems you clearly have a genuine interest in contributing to the encyclopedia. I hope it works out well for you when the next appeal is made. -- Euryalus (talk) 00:27, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
Hopefully similar to the last one the restrictions will be removed on WP:ROPE with the condition that they can be reinstated up to 6 months later by uninvolved users, in any case reinstating them will probably not happen per WP:SNOW. Crouch, Swale (talk) 10:19, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
I have as time has gone by kept on putting up my "notability" standards and have got better at creating content. However User:Nilfanion who was highly involved hasn't been active since July and they were the main one who I discussed these issues with. 1 year after I was unblocked is 17:57 on the 31st of December 2018 so you would still be an arbitrator until midnight on the 31st[4]. Crouch, Swale (talk) 09:39, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
(talk page stalker)@Crouch, Swale: right below this section Euryalus has mentioned that they're going to be away on holidays from the 9th till next year. Just a FYI. --Blackmane (talk) 10:02, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
Thanks Blackmane, and hi Crouch, Swale. As above, I won't be commenting on this appeal. Anything lodged at 6pm in December 31 will inevitably run over into 2019, so as an outgoing arbitrator its better I leave it to the new committee who take office from then. Arbitrators have the option to remain active on case requests that commenced before their term expired, but not on ARCA's or other procedural matters. So any vote or comment I made in those last couple of hours of the term would have no weight in the final outcome. In any case there's no urgent need for my input - the new committee seem pretty capable of managing this appeal. All the best with it, and for the holiday season. -- Euryalus (talk) 06:54, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
Latest comment: 5 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
On holidays from today to 2019 in a place with very little internet. That means not much likelihood of keeping pace with Arbcom stuff. So I've marked myself inactive to the end of the year, which also sees out the Committee term. There's no case requests pending and only one genuinely contentious ARCA, upon which I've already voted. So I doubt I'm leaving anything pending by being away these two weeks.
As always its been an interesting term, with some important stuff resolved and some other stuff left for a wiser generation, as they say. Ah well, same old. To those who have contributed in any way to Arbcom dispute resolution over the last four years, it's (mostly) been a pleasure to work with you, have a great Christmas and New Year and best of luck for 2019. -- Euryalus (talk) 00:25, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
Thank you so much for your important work at ArbCom, and Happy Holidays to you. Cullen328Let's discuss it 00:32, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
@Cullen328: Thanks, that's very kind of you. Apologies for the delayed replay - am away on holidays for a while. Arbcom has been a worthwhile experience but time to take a break and do some more article work. Merry Christmas to you, and all the best for 2019. -- Euryalus (talk) 06:57, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue CLII, December 2018
Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Wishing you and yours a Happy Holiday Season, from the horse and bishop person. May the year ahead be productive and troll-free. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:56, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
Happy Holidays!
Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Best wishes for this holiday season! Thank you for your Wiki contributions in 2018. May 2019 be prosperous and joyful. --K.e.coffman (talk) 00:50, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
Noël ~ καλά Χριστούγεννα ~ З Калядамі ~ חנוכה שמח ~ Gott nytt år!
wot a bunch of weirdos come here
Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
The white night on the saturday night - may your christmas and new year not be infested by too many idiots - ie enjoy yourself JarrahTree 10:31, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
Ha! Same to you, hope the holidays are treating you well. Just cleaning up after one particular idiot right now, there's always a few this time of year. All the best for Gcristmas and here's to a great 2019. -- Euryalus (talk) 10:33, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
Happy Holidays!
Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Happy Holidays!
May your winter holidays be filled with joy, laughter and good health. Wishing you all the best in 2019 and beyond.
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
.jpg)
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 Ultimograph5 -- Ultimograph5 (talk) 21:01, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
; see Talk:HMS Lizard (1757) 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 Ultimograph5 -- Ultimograph5 (talk) 00:02, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpeg)
_(14586469407).jpg)