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. |
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)
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)
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)
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)
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?
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)
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)
Well, shut my mouth! KDS4444 Talk 05:17, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
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.
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)
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)
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)
|
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)
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)
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)
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)
"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)
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)
Thank you ! Mlpearc ( open channel) 17:57, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
|
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)
The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar | |
Good job! ♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:54, 4 March 2015 (UTC) |
...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.
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)
Did you recognize the origin of my username? Short Brigade Harvester Boris ( talk) 14:30, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
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:
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)
|
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)
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)
. Buster Seven Talk 16:48, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
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)
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:
Friendly regards, Kareldorado ( talk) 15:40, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
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)
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 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)
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. 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)
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)
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)
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)
|
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)
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 Pumpkin Sky Prize, -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 07:29, 29 April 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)
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)
RGloucester — ☎ 03:36, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
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)
I just wanted to say, I remember hanging out in #Wikipedia about 7 years ago and seeing a coordinated and passionate campaign to get you adminship (some of the more uptight users in the channel weren't too happy with it, though). Something reminded me of it today, so I decided to google your name and check what came of it. And lo and behold, you're an admin! Congratulations!
199.245.163.1 ( talk) 15:20, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
Hey Euryalus,
Don't mean to hassle you, and I understand your task isn't simple, so feel free not to answer, but do you think you can a rough idea of what "a little while" means? NickCT ( talk) 12:43, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
Mike V • Talk 05:45, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
Was that intentional? It looks a bit odd... Yunshui 雲 水 12:29, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
|
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) 00:05, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
Sorry to trouble you with a question. A little while ago you closed the thread
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive877#WP:Harassment by Bfpage you mentioned "nonsense like "I hate you" userpage posts
". It may be me but, despite effort, am having trouble finding the reference and wondered whether this was wording that was actually used. Is there a ref? Thanks.
Greg
Kaye 14:49, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
Hello. Have you seem to forget something? -- George Ho ( talk) 00:29, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
Did you see it? Doug Weller ( talk) 12:53, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
Hello Euryalus, the It's Not Easy Being Green / Dick Strawbridge BLP vandal comes back like clockwork and so an indefinite protection level might be appropriate. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:47, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
Thank you! -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:11, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
I agree that I violated the spirit of the rules by participating in Project Wikify at all. That was suggested to me openly on GGC and nobody objected. I was motivated to begin editing the article and so I did it. That is the extent of my 'gaming the system' however. I believe the number of edits in Project Wikify was about 200. I am going to honestly and sincerely try to forget this all ever happened and resume using Wikipedia like I used to (landing on articles of interest organically and editing where I felt appropriate). And at such time as I make an additional roughly 200 edits normally and naturally, I will come to you directly to ask you to reverse your decision. I will concede it's possible the time it takes to accomplish that may aid by allowing me to relax and clear my head about this. Handpolk ( talk) 05:49, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
It appears that the topic ban has already been violated. Although I don't believe it was done intentionally. 208.76.111.246 ( talk) 06:44, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
[3] looks like one, I think there were others after the ban. Doug Weller ( talk) 09:48, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
I just wanted to say that I think you did a great job closing the fut.pref. ANI thread in general and my comments in particular. Thanks! I have made an offer of a truce here, so we can only hope that this is the end of the matter for me. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 10:15, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply to my ANI post regarding Beyond My Ken. Perhaps I wasn't clear enough, but the essence of my complaint was not a content dispute, but what seemed to me to be a violation of Wikipedia policy on harassment and on threat. The admin response didn't address this at all. I fully understood that on content, BMK was correct. My issue is with, as I mentioned above, harassment and threat. Thanks again for your attention to this matter! Regards, Kerry ( talk) 02:42, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
The editor appears to be testing the boundaries of their topic ban. See [4], which he deleted (referring to me as a "stalker" in his edit siummary, as he referred to other editors as "trolls"), denying that they were related to Gamergate, but it's clear that the only reason he edited them in the first place was Gamergate related. I'm right about out of AGF at this point. BMK ( talk) 23:30, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
I have blocked Handpolk for 48 hours after he continued to discuss Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers with other editors after a direct warning by me to stop. I was not aware of the above conversation, but until my direct warning to stop I gave him the benefit of the doubt. However, I feel the boundary-pushing has gotten out of hand. I do not believe that this editor's interest in an article on a firm that has recently been involved in a very high-profile gender discrimination case is coincidental, and I do not agree that portions of the article can be isolated as you describe above. As you state, the cumulative effect must be considered, and given my warning and the polemic they posted and restored on their talkpage last night, the erosion of limits has to stop. Consensus at AE is leaning heavily in favor of an indefinite block for this editor. Acroterion (talk) 03:10, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
Background: Starting this weekend, Gamergate fora were advocating for concerted action at Ellen Pao’s page. This would naturally spill over to the pages of the lawsuit and her former employer. The reason here, I believe, is that Pao is currently CEO of Reddit, and Gamergate is currently at odds with Reddit management over whether Reddit will continue to host many of Gamergate’s planning and publicity fora. I tried to alert some administrators when I saw screenshots extolling vandalized pages, and also added DS notices to some of the talk pages. I agree that the extent of Gamergate sanctions is preposterous -- I argued this quite visibly off-wiki during the Arbcom case and then reargued it at ARCA for good measure -- but Arbcom in its wisdom demured. One wields the mop with the sanctions you have, not with the sanctions you might wish for. MarkBernstein ( talk) 15:26, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
Hi Euryalus, i think you done a good job over at ANI(User Dmcq at Climate change denial), summed up nicely. Though two questions, i closed per a recent close, but the right corner archive message box was not displayed, i double checked but couldn't figure out why it was missing. And then someone pointed out that i should not close at ANI because i edit climate articles. However, i wasn't involved and didn't gained anything from it in the particular matter. Then I read WP:BADNAC, but that is a bit brief and only because I edit related topics, is imho not a COI. But maybe you can clarify and advise me for future engagements, thanks. prokaryotes ( talk) 13:00, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
The Mediator Barnstar | ||
For your participation in the 2015 Hillary Clinton move request. Took a little while for a decision, but I appreciate that you provided a clear and concise interpretation of the consensus. Couldn't have been a decision that was overly easy to make. Kudos. NickCT ( talk) 23:01, 15 June 2015 (UTC) |
(pinging @ Technical 13: so he's aware of this)
You noted here some agreement that a scope needed to be delineated on this case.
No scope has been indicated. Notices have gone out to participants without any indication there is scope ( example), nor is there anything on the case pages regarding the scope of the case. As I predicted, it's already becoming a free for all on the evidence page, and it hasn't even been open for a day yet.
Just in Rschen7754's evidence alone, we have 'evidence' being pulled from Meta, testwiki, mediawiki, commons, wiktionary, and simple wikipedia, with some of it dating back to nearly two years ago. This is just one respondent. Seven projects (including this one) and two years. Technical 13 can't possibly respond to this. He would need a team of lawyers to do it.
The original complaint in this RFAR is vacuous at best. The claims made in the accusations are, at least from my perspective, baseless [6] (with the sole exception on the job queues issue with which I have no expertise and can't comment). Yet the original complainant has managed to hoodwink ArbCom into opening a broader case investigating all things Technical 13. This is absurd on the face of it.
The only way to stop it now is to place a very strict scope on the case, and do it soon before the snowball of Rschen7754's becomes an avalanche. If it is not done, Technical 13 should just walk away. Any effort to defend himself is futile. Plus, there's the anchoring cognitive bias issues that the case is plagued with thanks to it being named "Technical 13" rather than "Technical 13 and PhantomTech". I did a study of 35 cases titled like this one, covering 2009 through 2012. Based on that study, it is more than nine times as likely for Technical 13 to suffer sanctions from this case than anyone else involved in this case, and there's a 35% chance one of his sanctions will be being banned from the project.
Does ArbCom have the courage to stop this? I doubt it. -- Hammersoft ( talk) 14:36, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
Hi. I wanted to ask if you could please narrow my topic-ban. I gamed the system so that I could edit Gamergate. I take responsibility for that and I am rightfully blocked from editing that article. However that's the only thing I've ever done wrong on Wikipedia, aside from arguably violating my topic ban. The edits themselves were fine, though. The language of the topic ban, especially 'broadly construed' has made me fearful of editing a huge number of articles. Very few of which seem warranted. For instance I've wanted to edit reddit, Sam Altman and Voat and have refrained from doing so for fear people would call them related.
I would request instead a defined list of articles I am not to edit, along with a prohibition from editing anything in any article that has to do with gender issues etc. Handpolk ( talk) 20:53, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
|
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) 13:38, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
By motion, the Arbitration Committee authorises the following injunction effective immediately:
You are receiving this message because you have commented about this matter on the
AN page, the
AE page or the
Case Requests page
and are therefore restricted as specified in (2). For the Arbitration Committee,
L235 (
t /
c /
ping in reply) via
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk) 01:30, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
Hi there Euryalus,
A follow up on this IP vandal, whom I call the Destructive Destroyer Vandal, for her inability to write without using redundant language. I first spotted these edits by 207.255.191.36 (which geolocates to Stevensville, Maryland [ISP: Atlantic Broadband]) It might seem innocuous even if there are redundant concepts or adjective-laden prose like "new freshman student", "an extremely powerful and dangerous", but then I also noticed the phrase "in order to release her one true friend and master" which sounded like the hamfisted writer from Gaithersburg. This seems even more likely considering the next 7 edits at this article was from 96.255.210.254, which geolocates to Gaithersburg, Maryland, (ISP: Verizon FiOS) "Once she overcomes their strong Cage of Sorrow", "he betrays Selina, despite her loyalty and devoted service to him.", "Bloom's tremendously strong powers", etc. I think it's reasonable to revert past all of these IPs' edits and I leave the blocking considerations up to you. Thanks and regards, Cyphoidbomb ( talk) 05:17, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
The Admin's Barnstar | |
Power to you, Euryalus. Not more power, of course, since as an admin you already weight plenty, just "power". As in, "may you always be empowered" or something like that. Drmies ( talk) 16:10, 30 June 2015 (UTC) |
You are receiving this message either because you are a party to the Arbitration enforcement arbitration case, because you have commented in the case request, or the AN or AE discussions leading to this arbitration case, or because you have specifically opted in to receiving these messages. Unless you are a party to this arbitration case, you may opt out of receiving further messages at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration enforcement/Notification list. The drafters of the Arbitration enforcement arbitration case have published a revised timetable for the case, which changes what you may have been told when the case was opened. The dates have been revised as follows: the Evidence phase will close 5 July 2015, one week earlier than originally scheduled; the Workshop phase will close 26 July 2015, one week later than originally scheduled; the Proposed decision is scheduled to be posted 9 August 2015, two weeks later than originally scheduled. Thank you. On behalf of the arbitration clerks, MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 07:58, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
Hi Euryalus, I have just created the article New South Wales Marine Corps, lifting heavily from the materials you assembled. If you could correct the article and augment it with references and further material that would be great. Regards, Acad Ronin ( talk) 15:31, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
This message is sent at 12:53, 5 July 2015 (UTC) by Arbitration Clerk User:Penwhale via MassMessage on behalf of the Arbitration Committee. You are receiving this message because your name appears on this list and have not elected to opt-out of being notified of development in the arbitration case.
On 5 July, 2015, the following motion was passed and enacted:
Bishonen | talk 18:59, 5 July 2015 (UTC).
We hope The Wikipedia Library has been a useful resource for your work. TWL is expanding rapidly and we need your help!
With only a couple hours per week, you can make a big difference for sharing knowledge. Please sign up and help us in one of these ways:
Send on behalf of
The Wikipedia Library using
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk) 04:31, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
Hi Euryalus, W.r.t the thing that Brustopher just asked about, the information is still available in the page history. You may wish to revdel the edit as well as the username. Hope this helps. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 00:56, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
Good block. I hadn't thought to check his/her talk page history for recent warnings. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 06:19, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
|
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) 22:35, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
Hi, thanks for your note on Ncfirefighter13's talk page about the Galveston Stingrays. One quick note: you say, "Please feel free to recreate it after there are grounds to assert its notability." However, this should be subject to a caveat, becaues Ncfirefighter13 has a documented conflict of interest with the page. Thanks for your help. Jd027 ( talk) 05:58, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
Hi, Euryalus,
I came across these odd files--
Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Euryalus/1,
Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Euryalus/2,
Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Euryalus/3,
Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Euryalus/4 and
Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Euryalus/5--and while they have existed for years without any problem, I wondered if it was appropriate to nominate them for deletion as they don't seem to have any connection to your RfA. Of course, I wanted to ask you first if you knew what these pages from 2008 were for and if you were okay with a few MfDs. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 16:42, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
ceradon ( talk • contribs) 03:26, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited William Baker (colonist), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page John Hunter. 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) 09:30, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
Hi Euryalus, I could use some new admin advice: I've been noticing problems with 216.15.44.111 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS) lately and I have issued several admonishments for unexplained removal of references, disruptive editing (re-removal of references without explanation), introduction of OR in the form of speculation. However, I just noticed that the IP geolocates to Gaithersburg, Maryland, US; ISP: RCN and that means it's someone who has been a pain in the past. I'm thinking about blocking them, but I'm not sure if that would go against WP:INVOLVED. This user, whom I have dubbed "The Destructive Destroyer Vandal" for their excessive use of redundant adjectives has been to ANI three times or so. Thoughts? Since they've never communicated as far as I know, I don't think that I've ever had a "dispute" with them, but I'd rather get some input than make a mistake. Many thanks, Cyphoidbomb ( talk) 20:19, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
ceradon ( talk • edits) 22:15, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
|
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) 11:46, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
Can you point me to the place or guide for requesting ARB sanction effects for an article? Thanks. prokaryotes ( talk) 12:30, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
Here is as good a place as any to give advance notice of early retirement from the Arbitration Committee at the end of this year. It's been an entirely worthwhile experience, but it takes too much time away from what I enjoy a lot more, which is the writing of obscure articles on eighteenth century shipping and colonial figures. I have Wikipedia hours for either Arbcom or articles - after a year doing Arbcom I'd like to get back to the topics I left behind.
Am flagging this early to encourage anyone thinking of running in the upcoming elections, on the basis that there will now be an extra spot available. Some advice to anyone contemplating a run - the volume of work is high, most issues require more detailed analysis than time permits, and the outcomes aren't always cheerfully received. Further, consensus decision-making is essential but understandably causes delays and compromise. More positively, Arbcom offers an excellent opportunity to address some major issues facing Wikipedia. If you like dispute resolution, think there's work to do to improve the editing environment, and have plenty of time on your hands, then you should nominate for election and see how you go.
I'll be staying on the Committee until the end of the year and have plenty more to do in that time. But in the spirit of this message, thanks to all the case participants (and members of the Committee) for what has been an interesting experience since January 1. -- Euryalus ( talk) 07:57, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
Hi Euryalus, Have you finished with the Aurora article? I have some info to add but want to avoid conflicting with any edits you might still be making. Best regards-- Ykraps ( talk) 14:38, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
Hello again! While trawling through old issues of the Gazette, for the Aurora article, I came across this piece [ [10]] (second column, 2nd and 3rd paragraphs) which mentions two prizes, a French privateer and an American cutter both with ransom bills on board. Any idea what ransom bills are? Do they mean written demands for ransom, banknotes paid as part of ransom, or something else? I'm intrigued.-- Ykraps ( talk) 11:46, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
I think I'm about done with this article for the time being. I wasn't sure what to do with your piece about the carpenter's trial. I have left it as a stand-alone section at the end but if you want to rework it into what I've added or move it into some sort of chronological order, I won't object. Regards-- Ykraps ( talk) 04:56, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
This is a message from the Wikimedia Foundation. Translations are available.
As you may know, the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees approved a new "Access to nonpublic information policy" on 25 April 2014 after a community consultation. The former policy has remained in place until the new policy could be implemented. That implementation work is now being done, and we are beginning the transition to the new policy.
An important part of that transition is helping volunteers like you sign the required confidentiality agreement. All Wikimedia volunteers with access to nonpublic information are required to sign this new agreement, and we have prepared some documentation to help you do so.
The Wikimedia Foundation is requiring that anyone with access to nonpublic information sign the new confidentiality agreement by 15 December 2015 (OTRS users have until 22 December 2015) to retain their access. You are receiving this email because you have access to nonpublic information and are required to sign the confidentiality agreement under the new policy.
Signing the confidentiality agreement for nonpublic information is conducted and tracked using Legalpad on Phabricator. The general confidentiality agreement is now ready, and the OTRS agreement will be ready after 22 September 2015. We have prepared a guide on Meta-Wiki to help you create your Phabricator account and sign the new agreement: Confidentiality agreement for nonpublic information/How to sign
If you have any questions or experience any problems while signing the new agreement, please visit this talk page or email me (gvarnumwikimedia.org). Again, please sign this confidentiality agreement by 15 December 2015 (OTRS users have until 22 December 2015) to retain your access to nonpublic information. If you do not wish to retain this access, please let me know and we will forward your request to the appropriate individuals.
Thank you,
Gregory Varnum (
User:GVarnum-WMF), Wikimedia Foundation
Posted by the MediaWiki message delivery 23:33, 15 September 2015 (UTC) • Translate • Get help
|
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) 05:09, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
Greetings from WikiProject Military history! As a member of the project, you are invited to take part in our annual project coordinator election. If you wish to cast a vote, please do so on the election page by 23:59 (UTC) on 29 September. Yours, Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 05:21, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
On 29 September 2015, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article HMS Trial (1744), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that a 24-year-old sloop, HMS Trial, was the Royal Navy's original choice for Captain Cook’s first voyage around the world? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/HMS Trial (1744). You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, live views, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page. |
Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 07:24, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
On 29 September 2015, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article William Baker (colonist), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that New South Wales Marine Corps sergeant William Baker was the inaugural crier for Australia's oldest Supreme Court? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/William Baker (colonist). You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, live views, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page. |
Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 19:39, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
Hi Euryalus, thanks for finding and adding info on what has to be one of HM's arguably most questionably named vessel, and certainly an obscure one. Was the info all in the Home Popham bio? Regards, Acad Ronin ( talk) 10:56, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
Hi. I noticed that people are working on creating the page for the elections this year, such as this page which discusses the number of vacant seats to be filled. The current (early) draft doesn't mention your statement earlier in the year that you will leave the Committee at the end of this year, thus creating another vacancy. I was thinking of updating that, but before I did I thought I should ask you whether that is still your intention? This isn't urgent, and I for one would be glad if you decided to serve out your second year after all, but please let me know when you have a moment. Regards, Newyorkbrad ( talk) 16:27, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
On 11 October 2015, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article HMS Endeavour (1694 bomb vessel), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the bomb vessel HMS Endeavour was so inaccurate that the Royal Navy sold it after less than two years of active service? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/HMS Endeavour (1694 bomb vessel). You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, live views, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page. |
Materialscientist ( talk) 03:33, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
|
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) 21:46, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
This is a message from the Wikimedia Foundation. Translations are available.
I wanted to follow-up on an message I sent you in September regarding the need for you to sign a confidentiality agreement by 15 December 2015 (OTRS users have until 31 December 2015) in order to maintain your access from Wikimedia to nonpublic information.
As you may know, the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees approved a new "Access to nonpublic information policy" on 25 April 2014 after a community consultation. The former policy has remained in place until the new policy could be implemented. That implementation work is now being done, and we are transitioning to the new policy.
An important part of that transition is helping volunteers like you sign the required confidentiality agreement. All Wikimedia volunteers with access to nonpublic information are required to sign this new agreement, and we have prepared some documentation to help you do so.
The Wikimedia Foundation is requiring that anyone with access to nonpublic information sign the new confidentiality agreement by 15 December 2015 (OTRS users have until 31 December 2015) to retain their access. You are receiving this message because you have access to nonpublic information and are required to sign the confidentiality agreement under the new policy. If you do not sign the new confidentiality agreement by 15 December 2015, you will lose your access to nonpublic information.
Signing the confidentiality agreement for nonpublic information is conducted and tracked using Legalpad on Phabricator. We have prepared a guide on Meta-Wiki to help you create your Phabricator account and sign the new agreement: Confidentiality agreement for nonpublic information/How to sign
If you have any questions or experience any problems while signing the new agreement, please visit this talk page or email me (gvarnumwikimedia.org). Again, please sign this confidentiality agreement by 15 December 2015 (OTRS users have until 31 December 2015) to retain your access to nonpublic information. If you do not wish to retain this access, please let me know and we will forward your request to the appropriate individuals.
Thank you,
Gregory Varnum (
User:GVarnum-WMF), Wikimedia Foundation
Posted by the MediaWiki message delivery 08:11, 16 October 2015 (UTC) • Translate • Get help
On 17 October 2015, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article James Scott (marine), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that New South Wales Marine sergeant James Scott was commander of the first quarter guard in Australia? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/James Scott (marine). You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, live views, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page. |
Gatoclass ( talk) 01:01, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
Hi Euryalus, I know you have been involved in this article. I have been doing some work using two books:
It now is becoming clear the the article on "Prince of Wales" conflates two vessels. The first, of 335 tons (bm), was launched at Sidmouth in 1779 and served as a West Indiaman before making the Botany Bay voyage in 1787-88. The reason she appears to have a 1786 launch date is that Lloyd's Register states that she underwent a complete rebuild in 1786. On her return from Botany Bay she became a South Seas whaler. The Prince of Wales that made the convict transport voyage in 1796-97 was of 279 tons (bm) and was launched in 1789 at Hull. I plan to check Lloyd's Register and Bateson to nail things down before I do anything to a "Good Article", but I did want to warn you that changes are probably coming. Regards, Acad Ronin ( talk) 22:33, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Sea Fencibles, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page City Point. 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) 11:01, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
Is accepting evidence from site banned editors via email or some other channel allowed? This is a query based on your comment here. I could see it if it involves them specifically, but if a case does not, why would we allow a banned editor to have any input?-- MONGO 10:09, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
let me think on this a bit. — Ched : ? 07:08, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
Hi. A purely procedural/ministerial question: Did you mean to vote support for your motion? At the moment one can't even see who proposed it without checking the page history. I expect you just forgot the four tildes. Regards, Newyorkbrad ( talk) 18:12, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
Would you consider SALTing it since it has now been deleted 6 times? Legacypac ( talk) 11:57, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
|
The Bugle is published by the
Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please
join the project or sign up
here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from
this page. Your editors,
Ian Rose (
talk) and
Nick-D (
talk) 03:25, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
/info/en/?search=Special:Contributions/Mystery_Wolff I am not sure what can be done. The account is not a new editor. QuackGuru ( talk) 18:48, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current
Arbitration Committee election. The
Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia
arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to
review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on
the voting page. For the Election committee,
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk) 16:39, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Did anything ever come of this appeal? BMK ( talk) 00:50, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
FYI I think you made a good call on the Blue Army of Poland. You said it was unlikely to please anyone, but it seems fair to me (even though I was the one who suggested a full Eastern Europe ban). Hopefully there will be no need to revisit the same issue in three months. Thanks. —Мандичка YO 😜 03:32, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
Hi. I noticed that you blocked Eightball. Now I was wondering how we should deal with their very uncivil comments in the discussion. Per Wikipedia:Civility#Removing_uncivil_comments and the fact that I am involved in the discussion, I cannot strike out or even remove the incivility, which is of course logical. So how should we deal with them the? Should we leave the comments as-is, should someone involved strike them out, or should someone uninvolved simply hat the off-topic uncivil comments? T v x1 17:04, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
On behalf of the Military history WikiProject's Coordinators, we would like to extend an invitation to nominate deserving editors for the 2015 Military historian of the year and Military history newcomer of the year awards. The nomination period will run from 7 December to 23:59 13 December, with the election phase running from 14 December to 23:59 21 December. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 05:05, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
Re: this close is unlikely to please anyone
– I thought it was reasonable and well-reasoned, more so than I usually expect out of ANI. I also appreciate that you applied
WP:AC/DS within the framework of ANI and community response. I'm too often running into people, including admins, who think that AE / AC/DS is some special fiefdom exempt from community norms and expectations, that DS is blanket license to impose any sanction they think they can get away way hitting someone with, and that ANI isn't even a venue in which DS-based remedies can be brought. Nice to see it all demonstrated otherwise. —
SMcCandlish ☺
☏
¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 08:03, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
Hi Euryalus, I had a chance to review the notes from the ANI, and I can accept the verdict what ever it might me. But, I would like to note that as soon as the proposed band for me was suggested user Faustian, immediately went to the Talk:Blue Army (Poland) page to propose new changes based on his POV. This problem will never end, and sooner or later Faustian will get into another fight with some editor on the Blue Army page. I would strongly recommend that the other end of this issue also get the attention to prevent another editing conflict. -- E-960 ( talk) 16:43, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
Hello, again I would request that the situation on the BA page is reviewed. It seems that since my block, user Faustian has taken over the page and is continually changing material despite genuine reservations by several editors on how this is being done. As I suspected, the reason why some editors pushed form my block is because I opposed their POV. Now, this is clear because Faustian is just changing everything to suit his POV. As user User:SMcCandlish noted sometime ago the article has a clear case of WP:COATRACK, and just by looking at the history the primary editor responsible for this is Faustian.-- E-960 ( talk) 09:29, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
I think that Talk:Blue Army (Poland) speaks for itself. Without E-960's generally incendiary behavior, a discussion was begun and concluded according to reliable sources and policy, and changes were made by consensus. I'm not surprised to learn that the only person who appeared after the fact to complain was someone canvassed by E-960 with no prior interest in the BA. - Darouet ( talk) 16:45, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
Hi Euryalus -
I'm legitimately curious, so please don't take this the wrong way. What do you find disingenuous in my statements about the CU unblocks? They were discussed on both the SPI page and the talkpage of the instructor, and the SPI clerk/admin who handled all the tagging (but not the blocking) advised me that they didn't count as CU blocks in a traditional sense and that I was free to unblock. Since I haven't been active at SPI in a really long time and since I verified it was an actual class, it seemed reasonable to follow the advice of an SPI clerk involved in the case instead of digging up the appropriate SPI specific policy. I should've notified Mike even if he wasn't a CU just as a matter of best practice in unblocking people, but assumed that he would've noticed the discussion at either the SPI or the instructor's page. Best, Kevin Gorman ( talk) 22:40, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
Here User:E-960 appears to be canvassing others to take up "his" fight on an article on which he was topic banned: [15]. Wikipedia policy states: [16] "The purpose of a topic ban is to forbid an editor from making edits related to a certain topic area where their contributions have been disruptive, but to allow them to edit the rest of Wikipedia. Unless clearly and unambiguously specified otherwise, a topic ban covers all pages (not only articles) broadly related to the topic, as well as the parts of other pages that are related to the topic. For example, if an editor is banned from the topic "weather", they are not only forbidden to edit the article Weather, but also everything else that has to do with weather, such as....discussions or suggestions about weather-related topics anywhere on Wikipedia (emphasis mine). Faustian ( talk) 15:47, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
...for getting the ball rolling on closing the GMO case. BMK ( talk) 07:57, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
Articles for deletion (AfD) is where Wikipedians discuss whether an article should be deleted. Articles listed are normally discussed for at least seven days, after which the deletion process proceeds based on community consensus. Then the article may be kept and improved, merged, redirected, incubated, transwikied (copied to another Wikimedia project), renamed/moved to another title, transcluded into another article (or other page), userfied to a user subpage, or deleted per the deletion policy. According to policy AfD is an appropriate place to conclude a move/rename. Legacypac ( talk) 04:18, 20 December 2015 (UTC).
I am aware of the RM process of course but in a lightly edited DAB it would hard to find editors to discuss an RM. I tried to be bold but an Admin insisted on reverting each effort. As all the reasonable titles around this are now burned, that left AfD. I have no quam with a DAB page at a (disambiguation) title. I would most appreciate reopening with your comment as very helpful given the type of page. Legacypac ( talk) 05:35, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited New South Wales Marine Corps, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bulkhead. 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) 10:37, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
Ϣere
SpielChequers is wishing you
Seasons Greetings! Whether you celebrate your hemisphere's
Solstice or
Christmas,
Diwali,
Hogmanay,
Hanukkah,
Lenaia,
Festivus or even the
Saturnalia, this is a special time of year for almost everyone!
Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{ subst: User:WereSpielChequers/Dec15a}} to your friends' talk pages.
|
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) 05:06, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
The IP editor is likely to be QUIX4U and Roxburgh NZ but these accounts were mistakenly blocked as sockpuppets of another user. Peter James ( talk) 01:42, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
I have a quibble with the explanation of the site ban on this person's Talk page. That said, I don't feel strongly about it, so if you disagree, you can of course keep it the way it is.
I would change the first paragraph to read:
I omitted the phrase "ie unblocking is no longer a routine admin decision but something that requires wider input". It was a CU block and could only be lifted or modified by me or another CheckUser. Thanks, btw, for closing the discussion at ANI.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 15:06, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
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. |
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. |
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)
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)
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)
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)
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?
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)
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)
Well, shut my mouth! KDS4444 Talk 05:17, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
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.
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)
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)
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)
|
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)
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)
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)
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)
"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)
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)
Thank you ! Mlpearc ( open channel) 17:57, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
|
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)
The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar | |
Good job! ♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:54, 4 March 2015 (UTC) |
...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.
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)
Did you recognize the origin of my username? Short Brigade Harvester Boris ( talk) 14:30, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
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:
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)
|
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)
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)
. Buster Seven Talk 16:48, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
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)
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:
Friendly regards, Kareldorado ( talk) 15:40, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
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)
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 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)
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. 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)
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)
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)
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)
|
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)
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 Pumpkin Sky Prize, -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 07:29, 29 April 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)
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)
RGloucester — ☎ 03:36, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
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)
I just wanted to say, I remember hanging out in #Wikipedia about 7 years ago and seeing a coordinated and passionate campaign to get you adminship (some of the more uptight users in the channel weren't too happy with it, though). Something reminded me of it today, so I decided to google your name and check what came of it. And lo and behold, you're an admin! Congratulations!
199.245.163.1 ( talk) 15:20, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
Hey Euryalus,
Don't mean to hassle you, and I understand your task isn't simple, so feel free not to answer, but do you think you can a rough idea of what "a little while" means? NickCT ( talk) 12:43, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
Mike V • Talk 05:45, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
Was that intentional? It looks a bit odd... Yunshui 雲 水 12:29, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
|
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) 00:05, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
Sorry to trouble you with a question. A little while ago you closed the thread
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive877#WP:Harassment by Bfpage you mentioned "nonsense like "I hate you" userpage posts
". It may be me but, despite effort, am having trouble finding the reference and wondered whether this was wording that was actually used. Is there a ref? Thanks.
Greg
Kaye 14:49, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
Hello. Have you seem to forget something? -- George Ho ( talk) 00:29, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
Did you see it? Doug Weller ( talk) 12:53, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
Hello Euryalus, the It's Not Easy Being Green / Dick Strawbridge BLP vandal comes back like clockwork and so an indefinite protection level might be appropriate. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:47, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
Thank you! -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:11, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
I agree that I violated the spirit of the rules by participating in Project Wikify at all. That was suggested to me openly on GGC and nobody objected. I was motivated to begin editing the article and so I did it. That is the extent of my 'gaming the system' however. I believe the number of edits in Project Wikify was about 200. I am going to honestly and sincerely try to forget this all ever happened and resume using Wikipedia like I used to (landing on articles of interest organically and editing where I felt appropriate). And at such time as I make an additional roughly 200 edits normally and naturally, I will come to you directly to ask you to reverse your decision. I will concede it's possible the time it takes to accomplish that may aid by allowing me to relax and clear my head about this. Handpolk ( talk) 05:49, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
It appears that the topic ban has already been violated. Although I don't believe it was done intentionally. 208.76.111.246 ( talk) 06:44, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
[3] looks like one, I think there were others after the ban. Doug Weller ( talk) 09:48, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
I just wanted to say that I think you did a great job closing the fut.pref. ANI thread in general and my comments in particular. Thanks! I have made an offer of a truce here, so we can only hope that this is the end of the matter for me. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 10:15, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply to my ANI post regarding Beyond My Ken. Perhaps I wasn't clear enough, but the essence of my complaint was not a content dispute, but what seemed to me to be a violation of Wikipedia policy on harassment and on threat. The admin response didn't address this at all. I fully understood that on content, BMK was correct. My issue is with, as I mentioned above, harassment and threat. Thanks again for your attention to this matter! Regards, Kerry ( talk) 02:42, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
The editor appears to be testing the boundaries of their topic ban. See [4], which he deleted (referring to me as a "stalker" in his edit siummary, as he referred to other editors as "trolls"), denying that they were related to Gamergate, but it's clear that the only reason he edited them in the first place was Gamergate related. I'm right about out of AGF at this point. BMK ( talk) 23:30, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
I have blocked Handpolk for 48 hours after he continued to discuss Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers with other editors after a direct warning by me to stop. I was not aware of the above conversation, but until my direct warning to stop I gave him the benefit of the doubt. However, I feel the boundary-pushing has gotten out of hand. I do not believe that this editor's interest in an article on a firm that has recently been involved in a very high-profile gender discrimination case is coincidental, and I do not agree that portions of the article can be isolated as you describe above. As you state, the cumulative effect must be considered, and given my warning and the polemic they posted and restored on their talkpage last night, the erosion of limits has to stop. Consensus at AE is leaning heavily in favor of an indefinite block for this editor. Acroterion (talk) 03:10, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
Background: Starting this weekend, Gamergate fora were advocating for concerted action at Ellen Pao’s page. This would naturally spill over to the pages of the lawsuit and her former employer. The reason here, I believe, is that Pao is currently CEO of Reddit, and Gamergate is currently at odds with Reddit management over whether Reddit will continue to host many of Gamergate’s planning and publicity fora. I tried to alert some administrators when I saw screenshots extolling vandalized pages, and also added DS notices to some of the talk pages. I agree that the extent of Gamergate sanctions is preposterous -- I argued this quite visibly off-wiki during the Arbcom case and then reargued it at ARCA for good measure -- but Arbcom in its wisdom demured. One wields the mop with the sanctions you have, not with the sanctions you might wish for. MarkBernstein ( talk) 15:26, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
Hi Euryalus, i think you done a good job over at ANI(User Dmcq at Climate change denial), summed up nicely. Though two questions, i closed per a recent close, but the right corner archive message box was not displayed, i double checked but couldn't figure out why it was missing. And then someone pointed out that i should not close at ANI because i edit climate articles. However, i wasn't involved and didn't gained anything from it in the particular matter. Then I read WP:BADNAC, but that is a bit brief and only because I edit related topics, is imho not a COI. But maybe you can clarify and advise me for future engagements, thanks. prokaryotes ( talk) 13:00, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
The Mediator Barnstar | ||
For your participation in the 2015 Hillary Clinton move request. Took a little while for a decision, but I appreciate that you provided a clear and concise interpretation of the consensus. Couldn't have been a decision that was overly easy to make. Kudos. NickCT ( talk) 23:01, 15 June 2015 (UTC) |
(pinging @ Technical 13: so he's aware of this)
You noted here some agreement that a scope needed to be delineated on this case.
No scope has been indicated. Notices have gone out to participants without any indication there is scope ( example), nor is there anything on the case pages regarding the scope of the case. As I predicted, it's already becoming a free for all on the evidence page, and it hasn't even been open for a day yet.
Just in Rschen7754's evidence alone, we have 'evidence' being pulled from Meta, testwiki, mediawiki, commons, wiktionary, and simple wikipedia, with some of it dating back to nearly two years ago. This is just one respondent. Seven projects (including this one) and two years. Technical 13 can't possibly respond to this. He would need a team of lawyers to do it.
The original complaint in this RFAR is vacuous at best. The claims made in the accusations are, at least from my perspective, baseless [6] (with the sole exception on the job queues issue with which I have no expertise and can't comment). Yet the original complainant has managed to hoodwink ArbCom into opening a broader case investigating all things Technical 13. This is absurd on the face of it.
The only way to stop it now is to place a very strict scope on the case, and do it soon before the snowball of Rschen7754's becomes an avalanche. If it is not done, Technical 13 should just walk away. Any effort to defend himself is futile. Plus, there's the anchoring cognitive bias issues that the case is plagued with thanks to it being named "Technical 13" rather than "Technical 13 and PhantomTech". I did a study of 35 cases titled like this one, covering 2009 through 2012. Based on that study, it is more than nine times as likely for Technical 13 to suffer sanctions from this case than anyone else involved in this case, and there's a 35% chance one of his sanctions will be being banned from the project.
Does ArbCom have the courage to stop this? I doubt it. -- Hammersoft ( talk) 14:36, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
Hi. I wanted to ask if you could please narrow my topic-ban. I gamed the system so that I could edit Gamergate. I take responsibility for that and I am rightfully blocked from editing that article. However that's the only thing I've ever done wrong on Wikipedia, aside from arguably violating my topic ban. The edits themselves were fine, though. The language of the topic ban, especially 'broadly construed' has made me fearful of editing a huge number of articles. Very few of which seem warranted. For instance I've wanted to edit reddit, Sam Altman and Voat and have refrained from doing so for fear people would call them related.
I would request instead a defined list of articles I am not to edit, along with a prohibition from editing anything in any article that has to do with gender issues etc. Handpolk ( talk) 20:53, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
|
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) 13:38, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
By motion, the Arbitration Committee authorises the following injunction effective immediately:
You are receiving this message because you have commented about this matter on the
AN page, the
AE page or the
Case Requests page
and are therefore restricted as specified in (2). For the Arbitration Committee,
L235 (
t /
c /
ping in reply) via
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk) 01:30, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
Hi there Euryalus,
A follow up on this IP vandal, whom I call the Destructive Destroyer Vandal, for her inability to write without using redundant language. I first spotted these edits by 207.255.191.36 (which geolocates to Stevensville, Maryland [ISP: Atlantic Broadband]) It might seem innocuous even if there are redundant concepts or adjective-laden prose like "new freshman student", "an extremely powerful and dangerous", but then I also noticed the phrase "in order to release her one true friend and master" which sounded like the hamfisted writer from Gaithersburg. This seems even more likely considering the next 7 edits at this article was from 96.255.210.254, which geolocates to Gaithersburg, Maryland, (ISP: Verizon FiOS) "Once she overcomes their strong Cage of Sorrow", "he betrays Selina, despite her loyalty and devoted service to him.", "Bloom's tremendously strong powers", etc. I think it's reasonable to revert past all of these IPs' edits and I leave the blocking considerations up to you. Thanks and regards, Cyphoidbomb ( talk) 05:17, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
The Admin's Barnstar | |
Power to you, Euryalus. Not more power, of course, since as an admin you already weight plenty, just "power". As in, "may you always be empowered" or something like that. Drmies ( talk) 16:10, 30 June 2015 (UTC) |
You are receiving this message either because you are a party to the Arbitration enforcement arbitration case, because you have commented in the case request, or the AN or AE discussions leading to this arbitration case, or because you have specifically opted in to receiving these messages. Unless you are a party to this arbitration case, you may opt out of receiving further messages at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration enforcement/Notification list. The drafters of the Arbitration enforcement arbitration case have published a revised timetable for the case, which changes what you may have been told when the case was opened. The dates have been revised as follows: the Evidence phase will close 5 July 2015, one week earlier than originally scheduled; the Workshop phase will close 26 July 2015, one week later than originally scheduled; the Proposed decision is scheduled to be posted 9 August 2015, two weeks later than originally scheduled. Thank you. On behalf of the arbitration clerks, MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 07:58, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
Hi Euryalus, I have just created the article New South Wales Marine Corps, lifting heavily from the materials you assembled. If you could correct the article and augment it with references and further material that would be great. Regards, Acad Ronin ( talk) 15:31, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
This message is sent at 12:53, 5 July 2015 (UTC) by Arbitration Clerk User:Penwhale via MassMessage on behalf of the Arbitration Committee. You are receiving this message because your name appears on this list and have not elected to opt-out of being notified of development in the arbitration case.
On 5 July, 2015, the following motion was passed and enacted:
Bishonen | talk 18:59, 5 July 2015 (UTC).
We hope The Wikipedia Library has been a useful resource for your work. TWL is expanding rapidly and we need your help!
With only a couple hours per week, you can make a big difference for sharing knowledge. Please sign up and help us in one of these ways:
Send on behalf of
The Wikipedia Library using
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk) 04:31, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
Hi Euryalus, W.r.t the thing that Brustopher just asked about, the information is still available in the page history. You may wish to revdel the edit as well as the username. Hope this helps. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 00:56, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
Good block. I hadn't thought to check his/her talk page history for recent warnings. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 06:19, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
|
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) 22:35, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
Hi, thanks for your note on Ncfirefighter13's talk page about the Galveston Stingrays. One quick note: you say, "Please feel free to recreate it after there are grounds to assert its notability." However, this should be subject to a caveat, becaues Ncfirefighter13 has a documented conflict of interest with the page. Thanks for your help. Jd027 ( talk) 05:58, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
Hi, Euryalus,
I came across these odd files--
Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Euryalus/1,
Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Euryalus/2,
Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Euryalus/3,
Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Euryalus/4 and
Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Euryalus/5--and while they have existed for years without any problem, I wondered if it was appropriate to nominate them for deletion as they don't seem to have any connection to your RfA. Of course, I wanted to ask you first if you knew what these pages from 2008 were for and if you were okay with a few MfDs. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 16:42, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
ceradon ( talk • contribs) 03:26, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited William Baker (colonist), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page John Hunter. 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) 09:30, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
Hi Euryalus, I could use some new admin advice: I've been noticing problems with 216.15.44.111 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS) lately and I have issued several admonishments for unexplained removal of references, disruptive editing (re-removal of references without explanation), introduction of OR in the form of speculation. However, I just noticed that the IP geolocates to Gaithersburg, Maryland, US; ISP: RCN and that means it's someone who has been a pain in the past. I'm thinking about blocking them, but I'm not sure if that would go against WP:INVOLVED. This user, whom I have dubbed "The Destructive Destroyer Vandal" for their excessive use of redundant adjectives has been to ANI three times or so. Thoughts? Since they've never communicated as far as I know, I don't think that I've ever had a "dispute" with them, but I'd rather get some input than make a mistake. Many thanks, Cyphoidbomb ( talk) 20:19, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
ceradon ( talk • edits) 22:15, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
|
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) 11:46, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
Can you point me to the place or guide for requesting ARB sanction effects for an article? Thanks. prokaryotes ( talk) 12:30, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
Here is as good a place as any to give advance notice of early retirement from the Arbitration Committee at the end of this year. It's been an entirely worthwhile experience, but it takes too much time away from what I enjoy a lot more, which is the writing of obscure articles on eighteenth century shipping and colonial figures. I have Wikipedia hours for either Arbcom or articles - after a year doing Arbcom I'd like to get back to the topics I left behind.
Am flagging this early to encourage anyone thinking of running in the upcoming elections, on the basis that there will now be an extra spot available. Some advice to anyone contemplating a run - the volume of work is high, most issues require more detailed analysis than time permits, and the outcomes aren't always cheerfully received. Further, consensus decision-making is essential but understandably causes delays and compromise. More positively, Arbcom offers an excellent opportunity to address some major issues facing Wikipedia. If you like dispute resolution, think there's work to do to improve the editing environment, and have plenty of time on your hands, then you should nominate for election and see how you go.
I'll be staying on the Committee until the end of the year and have plenty more to do in that time. But in the spirit of this message, thanks to all the case participants (and members of the Committee) for what has been an interesting experience since January 1. -- Euryalus ( talk) 07:57, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
Hi Euryalus, Have you finished with the Aurora article? I have some info to add but want to avoid conflicting with any edits you might still be making. Best regards-- Ykraps ( talk) 14:38, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
Hello again! While trawling through old issues of the Gazette, for the Aurora article, I came across this piece [ [10]] (second column, 2nd and 3rd paragraphs) which mentions two prizes, a French privateer and an American cutter both with ransom bills on board. Any idea what ransom bills are? Do they mean written demands for ransom, banknotes paid as part of ransom, or something else? I'm intrigued.-- Ykraps ( talk) 11:46, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
I think I'm about done with this article for the time being. I wasn't sure what to do with your piece about the carpenter's trial. I have left it as a stand-alone section at the end but if you want to rework it into what I've added or move it into some sort of chronological order, I won't object. Regards-- Ykraps ( talk) 04:56, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
This is a message from the Wikimedia Foundation. Translations are available.
As you may know, the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees approved a new "Access to nonpublic information policy" on 25 April 2014 after a community consultation. The former policy has remained in place until the new policy could be implemented. That implementation work is now being done, and we are beginning the transition to the new policy.
An important part of that transition is helping volunteers like you sign the required confidentiality agreement. All Wikimedia volunteers with access to nonpublic information are required to sign this new agreement, and we have prepared some documentation to help you do so.
The Wikimedia Foundation is requiring that anyone with access to nonpublic information sign the new confidentiality agreement by 15 December 2015 (OTRS users have until 22 December 2015) to retain their access. You are receiving this email because you have access to nonpublic information and are required to sign the confidentiality agreement under the new policy.
Signing the confidentiality agreement for nonpublic information is conducted and tracked using Legalpad on Phabricator. The general confidentiality agreement is now ready, and the OTRS agreement will be ready after 22 September 2015. We have prepared a guide on Meta-Wiki to help you create your Phabricator account and sign the new agreement: Confidentiality agreement for nonpublic information/How to sign
If you have any questions or experience any problems while signing the new agreement, please visit this talk page or email me (gvarnumwikimedia.org). Again, please sign this confidentiality agreement by 15 December 2015 (OTRS users have until 22 December 2015) to retain your access to nonpublic information. If you do not wish to retain this access, please let me know and we will forward your request to the appropriate individuals.
Thank you,
Gregory Varnum (
User:GVarnum-WMF), Wikimedia Foundation
Posted by the MediaWiki message delivery 23:33, 15 September 2015 (UTC) • Translate • Get help
|
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) 05:09, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
Greetings from WikiProject Military history! As a member of the project, you are invited to take part in our annual project coordinator election. If you wish to cast a vote, please do so on the election page by 23:59 (UTC) on 29 September. Yours, Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 05:21, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
On 29 September 2015, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article HMS Trial (1744), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that a 24-year-old sloop, HMS Trial, was the Royal Navy's original choice for Captain Cook’s first voyage around the world? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/HMS Trial (1744). You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, live views, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page. |
Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 07:24, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
On 29 September 2015, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article William Baker (colonist), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that New South Wales Marine Corps sergeant William Baker was the inaugural crier for Australia's oldest Supreme Court? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/William Baker (colonist). You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, live views, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page. |
Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 19:39, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
Hi Euryalus, thanks for finding and adding info on what has to be one of HM's arguably most questionably named vessel, and certainly an obscure one. Was the info all in the Home Popham bio? Regards, Acad Ronin ( talk) 10:56, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
Hi. I noticed that people are working on creating the page for the elections this year, such as this page which discusses the number of vacant seats to be filled. The current (early) draft doesn't mention your statement earlier in the year that you will leave the Committee at the end of this year, thus creating another vacancy. I was thinking of updating that, but before I did I thought I should ask you whether that is still your intention? This isn't urgent, and I for one would be glad if you decided to serve out your second year after all, but please let me know when you have a moment. Regards, Newyorkbrad ( talk) 16:27, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
On 11 October 2015, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article HMS Endeavour (1694 bomb vessel), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the bomb vessel HMS Endeavour was so inaccurate that the Royal Navy sold it after less than two years of active service? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/HMS Endeavour (1694 bomb vessel). You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, live views, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page. |
Materialscientist ( talk) 03:33, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
|
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) 21:46, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
This is a message from the Wikimedia Foundation. Translations are available.
I wanted to follow-up on an message I sent you in September regarding the need for you to sign a confidentiality agreement by 15 December 2015 (OTRS users have until 31 December 2015) in order to maintain your access from Wikimedia to nonpublic information.
As you may know, the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees approved a new "Access to nonpublic information policy" on 25 April 2014 after a community consultation. The former policy has remained in place until the new policy could be implemented. That implementation work is now being done, and we are transitioning to the new policy.
An important part of that transition is helping volunteers like you sign the required confidentiality agreement. All Wikimedia volunteers with access to nonpublic information are required to sign this new agreement, and we have prepared some documentation to help you do so.
The Wikimedia Foundation is requiring that anyone with access to nonpublic information sign the new confidentiality agreement by 15 December 2015 (OTRS users have until 31 December 2015) to retain their access. You are receiving this message because you have access to nonpublic information and are required to sign the confidentiality agreement under the new policy. If you do not sign the new confidentiality agreement by 15 December 2015, you will lose your access to nonpublic information.
Signing the confidentiality agreement for nonpublic information is conducted and tracked using Legalpad on Phabricator. We have prepared a guide on Meta-Wiki to help you create your Phabricator account and sign the new agreement: Confidentiality agreement for nonpublic information/How to sign
If you have any questions or experience any problems while signing the new agreement, please visit this talk page or email me (gvarnumwikimedia.org). Again, please sign this confidentiality agreement by 15 December 2015 (OTRS users have until 31 December 2015) to retain your access to nonpublic information. If you do not wish to retain this access, please let me know and we will forward your request to the appropriate individuals.
Thank you,
Gregory Varnum (
User:GVarnum-WMF), Wikimedia Foundation
Posted by the MediaWiki message delivery 08:11, 16 October 2015 (UTC) • Translate • Get help
On 17 October 2015, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article James Scott (marine), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that New South Wales Marine sergeant James Scott was commander of the first quarter guard in Australia? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/James Scott (marine). You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, live views, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page. |
Gatoclass ( talk) 01:01, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
Hi Euryalus, I know you have been involved in this article. I have been doing some work using two books:
It now is becoming clear the the article on "Prince of Wales" conflates two vessels. The first, of 335 tons (bm), was launched at Sidmouth in 1779 and served as a West Indiaman before making the Botany Bay voyage in 1787-88. The reason she appears to have a 1786 launch date is that Lloyd's Register states that she underwent a complete rebuild in 1786. On her return from Botany Bay she became a South Seas whaler. The Prince of Wales that made the convict transport voyage in 1796-97 was of 279 tons (bm) and was launched in 1789 at Hull. I plan to check Lloyd's Register and Bateson to nail things down before I do anything to a "Good Article", but I did want to warn you that changes are probably coming. Regards, Acad Ronin ( talk) 22:33, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Sea Fencibles, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page City Point. 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) 11:01, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
Is accepting evidence from site banned editors via email or some other channel allowed? This is a query based on your comment here. I could see it if it involves them specifically, but if a case does not, why would we allow a banned editor to have any input?-- MONGO 10:09, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
let me think on this a bit. — Ched : ? 07:08, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
Hi. A purely procedural/ministerial question: Did you mean to vote support for your motion? At the moment one can't even see who proposed it without checking the page history. I expect you just forgot the four tildes. Regards, Newyorkbrad ( talk) 18:12, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
Would you consider SALTing it since it has now been deleted 6 times? Legacypac ( talk) 11:57, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
|
The Bugle is published by the
Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please
join the project or sign up
here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from
this page. Your editors,
Ian Rose (
talk) and
Nick-D (
talk) 03:25, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
/info/en/?search=Special:Contributions/Mystery_Wolff I am not sure what can be done. The account is not a new editor. QuackGuru ( talk) 18:48, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current
Arbitration Committee election. The
Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia
arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to
review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on
the voting page. For the Election committee,
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk) 16:39, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Did anything ever come of this appeal? BMK ( talk) 00:50, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
FYI I think you made a good call on the Blue Army of Poland. You said it was unlikely to please anyone, but it seems fair to me (even though I was the one who suggested a full Eastern Europe ban). Hopefully there will be no need to revisit the same issue in three months. Thanks. —Мандичка YO 😜 03:32, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
Hi. I noticed that you blocked Eightball. Now I was wondering how we should deal with their very uncivil comments in the discussion. Per Wikipedia:Civility#Removing_uncivil_comments and the fact that I am involved in the discussion, I cannot strike out or even remove the incivility, which is of course logical. So how should we deal with them the? Should we leave the comments as-is, should someone involved strike them out, or should someone uninvolved simply hat the off-topic uncivil comments? T v x1 17:04, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
On behalf of the Military history WikiProject's Coordinators, we would like to extend an invitation to nominate deserving editors for the 2015 Military historian of the year and Military history newcomer of the year awards. The nomination period will run from 7 December to 23:59 13 December, with the election phase running from 14 December to 23:59 21 December. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 05:05, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
Re: this close is unlikely to please anyone
– I thought it was reasonable and well-reasoned, more so than I usually expect out of ANI. I also appreciate that you applied
WP:AC/DS within the framework of ANI and community response. I'm too often running into people, including admins, who think that AE / AC/DS is some special fiefdom exempt from community norms and expectations, that DS is blanket license to impose any sanction they think they can get away way hitting someone with, and that ANI isn't even a venue in which DS-based remedies can be brought. Nice to see it all demonstrated otherwise. —
SMcCandlish ☺
☏
¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 08:03, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
Hi Euryalus, I had a chance to review the notes from the ANI, and I can accept the verdict what ever it might me. But, I would like to note that as soon as the proposed band for me was suggested user Faustian, immediately went to the Talk:Blue Army (Poland) page to propose new changes based on his POV. This problem will never end, and sooner or later Faustian will get into another fight with some editor on the Blue Army page. I would strongly recommend that the other end of this issue also get the attention to prevent another editing conflict. -- E-960 ( talk) 16:43, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
Hello, again I would request that the situation on the BA page is reviewed. It seems that since my block, user Faustian has taken over the page and is continually changing material despite genuine reservations by several editors on how this is being done. As I suspected, the reason why some editors pushed form my block is because I opposed their POV. Now, this is clear because Faustian is just changing everything to suit his POV. As user User:SMcCandlish noted sometime ago the article has a clear case of WP:COATRACK, and just by looking at the history the primary editor responsible for this is Faustian.-- E-960 ( talk) 09:29, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
I think that Talk:Blue Army (Poland) speaks for itself. Without E-960's generally incendiary behavior, a discussion was begun and concluded according to reliable sources and policy, and changes were made by consensus. I'm not surprised to learn that the only person who appeared after the fact to complain was someone canvassed by E-960 with no prior interest in the BA. - Darouet ( talk) 16:45, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
Hi Euryalus -
I'm legitimately curious, so please don't take this the wrong way. What do you find disingenuous in my statements about the CU unblocks? They were discussed on both the SPI page and the talkpage of the instructor, and the SPI clerk/admin who handled all the tagging (but not the blocking) advised me that they didn't count as CU blocks in a traditional sense and that I was free to unblock. Since I haven't been active at SPI in a really long time and since I verified it was an actual class, it seemed reasonable to follow the advice of an SPI clerk involved in the case instead of digging up the appropriate SPI specific policy. I should've notified Mike even if he wasn't a CU just as a matter of best practice in unblocking people, but assumed that he would've noticed the discussion at either the SPI or the instructor's page. Best, Kevin Gorman ( talk) 22:40, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
Here User:E-960 appears to be canvassing others to take up "his" fight on an article on which he was topic banned: [15]. Wikipedia policy states: [16] "The purpose of a topic ban is to forbid an editor from making edits related to a certain topic area where their contributions have been disruptive, but to allow them to edit the rest of Wikipedia. Unless clearly and unambiguously specified otherwise, a topic ban covers all pages (not only articles) broadly related to the topic, as well as the parts of other pages that are related to the topic. For example, if an editor is banned from the topic "weather", they are not only forbidden to edit the article Weather, but also everything else that has to do with weather, such as....discussions or suggestions about weather-related topics anywhere on Wikipedia (emphasis mine). Faustian ( talk) 15:47, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
...for getting the ball rolling on closing the GMO case. BMK ( talk) 07:57, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
Articles for deletion (AfD) is where Wikipedians discuss whether an article should be deleted. Articles listed are normally discussed for at least seven days, after which the deletion process proceeds based on community consensus. Then the article may be kept and improved, merged, redirected, incubated, transwikied (copied to another Wikimedia project), renamed/moved to another title, transcluded into another article (or other page), userfied to a user subpage, or deleted per the deletion policy. According to policy AfD is an appropriate place to conclude a move/rename. Legacypac ( talk) 04:18, 20 December 2015 (UTC).
I am aware of the RM process of course but in a lightly edited DAB it would hard to find editors to discuss an RM. I tried to be bold but an Admin insisted on reverting each effort. As all the reasonable titles around this are now burned, that left AfD. I have no quam with a DAB page at a (disambiguation) title. I would most appreciate reopening with your comment as very helpful given the type of page. Legacypac ( talk) 05:35, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited New South Wales Marine Corps, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bulkhead. 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) 10:37, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
Ϣere
SpielChequers is wishing you
Seasons Greetings! Whether you celebrate your hemisphere's
Solstice or
Christmas,
Diwali,
Hogmanay,
Hanukkah,
Lenaia,
Festivus or even the
Saturnalia, this is a special time of year for almost everyone!
Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{ subst: User:WereSpielChequers/Dec15a}} to your friends' talk pages.
|
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) 05:06, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
The IP editor is likely to be QUIX4U and Roxburgh NZ but these accounts were mistakenly blocked as sockpuppets of another user. Peter James ( talk) 01:42, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
I have a quibble with the explanation of the site ban on this person's Talk page. That said, I don't feel strongly about it, so if you disagree, you can of course keep it the way it is.
I would change the first paragraph to read:
I omitted the phrase "ie unblocking is no longer a routine admin decision but something that requires wider input". It was a CU block and could only be lifted or modified by me or another CheckUser. Thanks, btw, for closing the discussion at ANI.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 15:06, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
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. |