User talk:Euryalus/Archive11

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.

Happy New Year!

Euryalus,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
Class455 (talk | stand clear of the doors!) 17:46, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Hi Euryalus, Happy New Year. Note: I still remember that when I was taught to spell in Australia (it never really took all that well), in the mid to late 1950s, it was "i-ZED-e-d". Times change. Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 22:48, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

That IP is a longtime troll and nothing they do should be taken seriously. I am actually also working on the article at the moment as well. —DangerousJXD (talk) 11:39, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

@DangerousJXD: Yep. Materialscientist beat me to the first block, but I got the second one. If the return let me know and will semi-protect the page. Be good, however, if you could add some more references to demonstrate notability. I imagine that this should be fairly easy for such a lengthy franchise, but a) it's not my area, and b) i'm on a mobile device so research work isn't ideal. Good luck with your article improvemens, and please do remove the tags once you've added some refs and strengthened the notability claim. -- Euryalus (talk) 11:45, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm just about finished for the day so I won't be around for about nine hours. Judging by their recent activity, they'll probably return in two hours with some other tactic. References will be in the article within three days, probably tomorrow. —DangerousJXD (talk) 11:54, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

On 4 January 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article HMS Stork (1756), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the 10-gun sloop-of-war HMS Stork was originally designed to resemble King George II's yacht Royal Caroline? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/HMS Stork (1756). You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, HMS Stork (1756)), 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.

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:01, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Hey there, quick question, Per Motion, the Arbitration committee has specifically said:

–Administrators are not permitted to remove the extendedconfirmed user group as a discretionary sanction. −Administrators must not remove the extendedconfirmed user group as means of bypassing defined arbitration enforcement procedures (for example, removing the user group as a normal administrative action to avoid banning an editor from the Gamergate controversy article.

Your removal seems to be counter to that motion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.40.144.21 (talk) 13:04, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi, and thanks for the message. The removal was not a discretionary sanction or a "normal administrative action;" it was the outcome of a defined arbitration enforcement procedure at WP:AE. -- Euryalus (talk) 13:24, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi there

You deleted the article Emporium Melbourne last August. Could you please restore it to Draft:Emporium Melbourne so I can see whether the article can be brought up to scratch? There is clearly some interest in it with several previous attempts and numerous articles linking there.

Many thanks. —sroc 💬 15:15, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

@Sroc: Done, it's at User:sroc/Emporium Melbourne. Went with userspace draft rather than just Draft, as I've noticed the occasional tendency in draft cleanup drives for draft articles to be moved into mainspace prematurely and then speedy deleted. Good luck with expanding and sourcing the article. -- Euryalus (talk) 22:06, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, Euryalus. —sroc 💬 09:09, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

		Military history reviewers' award
		On behalf of the Milhist coordinators, you are hereby awarded the WikiChevrons for reviewing a total of 2 Milhist articles at PR, GAN, ACR or FAC during the period October to December 2016. Your ongoing efforts to support Wikipedia's quality content processes are greatly appreciated. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 04:14, 7 January 2017 (UTC) Keep track of upcoming reviews. Just copy and paste {{WPMILHIST Review alerts}} to your user space

Thanks, though two reviews is pretty poor for a quarterly tally. Will do better for the Jan-March report. -- Euryalus (talk) 09:28, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 and Nick-D look at three recent works Op-ed: TomStar81 on a curious episode of World War I Timeline: This month in World War I

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diplomacy
	Thank you! Marlo Jonesa (talk) 22:30, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, but assume this is meant ironically as my response was not especially diplomatic.-- Euryalus (talk) 01:52, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

I wanted to thank you for your efforts, anyway thank you and apologize for the inconvenience, wish you a happy day.--Marlo Jonesa (talk) 02:04, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Oh, no inconvenience, just checking I was not missing something. And thanks again. -- Euryalus (talk) 02:37, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

First of all, thanks for intervening in my argument with Beyond My Ken. I agree that letting it continue the way it had been going wasn't likely to be productive.

That said, I'm concerned about what the eventual outcome will be if we just cut if off. As I mentioned in that thread, I have past experience with other editors following me from one discussion to another, assuming bad faith about all of my edits. When that happens and nothing is done to address the root issue, it can go on for years.

In this case my concern is that the same argument, about whether the circumstances of my 2010 topic ban excuse other editors from having to assume good faith about any of my edits, will just resume on some future talk page where I decide to participate. (And that's something else I've experienced in the past.) Short of requesting an interaction ban, can you think of any way to avert that outcome? --Captain Occam (talk) 07:49, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the message. Really, i'd just go edit some articles. If you're concerned that others may try to mischaracterise your work, try working in some uncontroversial fields to start - that way any bad faith exhibited by others will be more easily identifiable as such. If people deliberately hound you, raise his on the relevant noticeboards, but otherwise just build up a solid editing record and you'll find that some of the naysayers lose their impact. You also mentioned a GA you worked on some years ago - pick an article you like and make another one. In my view that's more rewarding than any number of abstruse discussions on Jimbo's talk page.

Just suggestions - you're not prohibited in any way from continuing your Jimbo's discussion, but it's really going nowhere at present and I'd say it's time to move along to some content work.

I'd appreciate you and the other arbitrators taking a look at these edits: [1] [2] [3] I don't expect this to necessarily change the nature of your advice for me, but it's relevant to one of the things I recently brought up on the ArbCom mailing list. When I expressed concern there about other users possibly trying to spread their grievances from the R&I arbitration case into other topics, I got the impression that ArbCom thought I was just being paranoid.

As I said in Jimbo's user talk, I experienced basically the same thing from other users before my ban, so this is all very predictable. Do these edits give ArbCom better understanding of why my concerns are justified? --Captain Occam (talk) 23:51, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

You're correct; those were inappropriate edits, and they've been removed. I note the editor who made them has also agreed not to do it again, and nor should they. There will understandably be some people who are less than welcoming given the previous ban, but as above I think these will fade over time if you now build up a productive content editing record. As a personal opinion, the Jimbo Wales talk thread is not especially productive and doesn't help cast your current editing in a new light. But as above, you're not "prohibited" from continuing it in any way. -- Euryalus (talk) 00:03, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

I've made a request on extended confirmed but has been rejected again!!?.--Marlo Jonesa (talk) 17:13, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

@Marlo Jonesa: Hi, apologies for delay in replying - its 83 degrees here so am a bit slow moving. You are still editing within the prohibited topic area, and those edits will continue not to count toward approval for extendedconfirmed. Suggest in the first instance you discuss this with Samtar as the declining admin. -- Euryalus (talk) 05:17, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

No problem at all, thank you and good day.--Marlo Jonesa (talk) 13:46, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi there. I am lead writer for the Signpost's "Arbitration Report" and am wondering if you would be interested in answering some interviews questions as a newly elected Arbitrator. The questions can be asked through email, unless answering them here would be a more suitable choice. GamerPro64 20:26, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

@

GamerPro64: Feel free to ask any questions here. -- Euryalus (talk

) 21:51, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Ports removal noted - what makes transport any better? maritime issues on wp have never seemed to survive various very weird shifts and changes - whats next? JarrahTree 10:16, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Ports was in fact a useful separation, and what with ships and its imperial drift 5 to 7 years ago, it was going and swallowing heaps of things that didnt relate to it - and now maritime task force ? - smells what ships was trying to do then - grab bag scope well beyond its means - at least some bright spark hasnt swallowed up shipwrecks (yet) - (sorry to sound so disparaging) - imho maritime history (never left the blocks unfortunately), shipwrecks and maritime trades should have been kept well clear of transport and ships - monsters with little subtlety and unable to to accommodate the nuances and issues relating to the scope and subject areas. Just thoughts as you have removed the ports... no hard personal feelings, just ruminating on the weirdness of some of the quirks of wp en... JarrahTree 10:29, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Dont worry I am fully au fait with https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Transport/Maritime_transport_task_force the rational level headed explanation, its just I feel somewhat frustrated I never had the time, at the time to be a proselitizer for something better than ships and the maritime transport task forse - to me it reflects something that could have been done better. cest la vie or whatever JarrahTree 10:48, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi JarrahTree. It's what was agreed many years ago, as a merger between both Ports and Maritime Trades into Transport. Each of these had effectively one active member - me in Ports and Haus in Maritime Trades. We vaguely hoped that combining them into Transport would bring the larger editor base that we had tried and failed to attract. I agree that Transport isn't ideal, but the options are a little thin. There's life and speciality in Ships, but not enough synchronicity with Ships editors and ports pages. If you can think of anywhere better for these ports pages to go, other than the current inactive project, then let's propose that instead. Or if you think we should simply try to revive the Ports project, then am happy to reverse the changes and propose it again for new consensus - anything to try bringing these articles to a more engaged audience.

In passing I did also like the Maritime History project, but agree it never really got the attention it deserved.-- Euryalus (talk) 10:55, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for such a positive response to a blithering old idiot like me - having started the Australan Maritime History project (still active and working) I was keen to have an umbrella for that and the Irish - I had put up a proposal at the council for a maritime history project - but realise that it died on the proposal (I think I had real life issues at the time that didnt allow me the chance to develop it or proseltyse for it) from this long distance view (I had forgotten you and Haus had been the sole props so to speak...for the earlier two, my sincerest apology for my casting aspersions) this all feels like my attempt after the Hong Kong wikimania to argue for the resurrection of either the espionage and intelligence projects (both were moribund at the time) - I think the whole thing went the wrong way (imho) - big problem, an idea, even if it is a potentially good one, doesnt necessarily get traction... With the loss of ports and the maritime task force and current situation, I'd need to get back to you - still thinking, but once again - thank you for your tolerance of my opinionated judgement - it is appreciated JarrahTree 11:18, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Happy New Year, Euryalus! In regard to this edit, if you have your prefs set to see hidden categories, you will note that your edit landed the redirect back into Category:Unsynchronized talk page redirects. I've been emptying that category because, as you know, talk page redirect targets should be in sync with their subject pages' targets. In this case the subject page targets a ship index, and Talk:Scarborough (East Indiaman), the synchronized target, does not exist. I try to get to these to get them deleted, so wouldn't the correct procedure be to CSD (G8) the redirect at Talk:Scarborough (ship)?  Paine Ellsworth  ^u/c 17:21, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm so sorry for the edit I'm jus reeel drank ShrekGrande (talk) 02:10, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

See https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AArbitration_Committee%2FNoticeboard&type=revision&diff=762146560&oldid=762139006 NewYorkBrad should be Newyorkbrad. I'd fix it almost anywhere else but figure editing noticeboard posts isn't advisable. NativeForeigner ^Talk 23:23, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi NativeForeigner, I wouldn't have minded if you'd done it, but thanks, fixed. -- Euryalus (talk) 23:24, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

This seems odd - you should either capitalize both of equestrian and statue, or neither. Personally, I'd treat it as a proper name. Equestrian statue of Genghis Khan is actually the route many articles take (try the WP search), but maybe not so easy to find. Johnbod (talk) 11:54, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Ok, someone else has fixed it. Johnbod (talk) 03:04, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

@Johnbod: Sorry for the delayed response, am in an unpopular time zone. Agree with the capitalization for Statue, though your alternative name would have served just as well. -- Euryalus (talk) 03:14, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Paul Cheon. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. KGirlTrucker81 ^{huh? what I've been doing} 19:38, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2017). This first issue is being sent out to all administrators, if you wish to keep receiving it please subscribe. Your feedback is welcomed.

Administrator changes

NinjaRobotPirate • Schwede66 • K6ka • Ealdgyth • Ferret • Cyberpower678 • Mz7 • Primefac • Dodger67

Briangotts • JeremyA • BU Rob13

Guideline and policy news

• A discussion to workshop proposals to amend the administrator inactivity policy at Wikipedia talk:Administrators has been in process since late December 2016.
• Wikipedia:Pending changes/Request for Comment 2016 closed with no consensus for implementing Pending changes level 2 with new criteria for use.
• Following an RfC, an activity requirement is now in place for bots and bot operators.

Technical news

• When performing some administrative actions the reason field briefly gave suggestions as text was typed. This change has since been reverted so that issues with the implementation can be addressed. (T34950)
• Following the latest RfC concluding that Pending Changes 2 should not be used on the English Wikipedia, an RfC closed with consensus to remove the options for using it from the page protection interface, a change which has now been made. (T156448)
• The Foundation has announced a new community health initiative to combat harassment. This should bring numerous improvements to tools for admins and CheckUsers in 2017.

Arbitration

• The Arbitration Committee released a response to the Wikimedia Foundation's statement on paid editing and outing.

Obituaries

• JohnCD (John Cameron Deas) passed away on 30 December 2016. John began editing Wikipedia seriously during 2007 and became an administrator in November 2009.

13:36, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXXX, February 2017

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Recent external reviews Op-ed: TomStar81 looks at submarine warfare in World War I Timeline: This month in World War I

@Euryalus: I initially made my first edit to their talk page back in December 2016 asking them to stop - at that time they weren't blocked. They never replied to my message when they were unblocked, it was only after they were blocked that they started to reply. So I decided to reply and I tried to tell them that there are sources there to support the information so you can't remove blocked information. Their latest message showed me that they didn't really do much, instead they started to cuss at me. That's why I brought it to the Wikipedia Admin noticeboard. (110.148.124.58 (talk) 11:29, 9 February 2017 (UTC))

Understood, and no editor deserves to be randomly abused like that. However there doesn't seem much mileage in a longer block for an IP and am reluctant to protect an IP talkpage; unless they try to evade the block it's probably easiest to unwatch their talkpage and move on with editing. FWIW am not suggesting fault on your part, just moving the issue along with the least possible drama. -- Euryalus (talk) 12:24, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

I understand, I guess it'll only be for the better if there was no drama. Thanks for understanding my issue and helping @Euryalus:, I'll stop looking at their talk page. (110.148.124.58 (talk) 13:13, 9 February 2017 (UTC))

Just wanted to give you an FYI, the section you closed Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Bad faith user just had a response 2 days later from the subject: [4]. RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:52, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

@RickinBaltimore: Thanks. Still not clear if they've actually read the policy, but at least they're now using the article talkpage instead of edit-warring in the article itself. Will keep an eye on it (and the various IPs that comment on the same topic). -- Euryalus (talk) 20:09, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Since there appears to be a common - somewhat offhanded-manner - tendency not to follow my complaints, I will again make my point here: you will see no more contributions from my side exactly because

I think the CSD A7 proposal at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Raleigh_Black&type=revision&diff=766089858&oldid=766088561 really needed something more than an edit summary - it is a clear misuse of the CSD A7 rules, and I have been pulled up on CSD misapplication at new pages a few times myself: one of the things at speedy and new pages [5] - when in doubt dont do it is the message - and I suspect talkpage and edit history suggests leniency is being too kind JarrahTree 01:47, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

@

disruptive editing. Too late to warn in this case, but you're right that it deserved more than just an edit summary decline.-- Euryalus (talk

) 04:00, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Can you semi-protect to persistent long-term abuse IPs (

Hi, and thanks for the message. Alas I'm not familiar with either this alleged vandal or any music genres. Suggest AIV in the first instance, as recommended at the LTA page. -- Euryalus (talk) 11:01, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

What is wrong with an encyclopedic stub on an orthodox church in Fresno, CA? It's been there since 1957 as I cited (as well as location and website). Is it because it's a church? AprilHare (talk) 22:12, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

@

this policy page

. As deleted, the article included an infobox showing the church's location, and only the following text: "St Peter the Apostle Serbian Orthodox Church is a church at 3502 N First St in Fresno, California." I'm absolutely certain that's all true, but alas it's not enough for a Wikipedia page.

If you do think the church is notable enough for Wikipedia page, it may be good to explore (for example) whether it has any unique and well-documented architectural features, has played a significant and recorded role in the Californian Serbian Orthodox community, or is documented as a particular focal point for the people of Fresno. Notability criteria in Wikipedia terms can be achieved in a million different ways, but they all require sourcing as described above. If there's insufficient secondary coverage to meet Wikipedia's requirements it may also be possible to include what references there are on the church, in a wider article on either Fresno or the Serbian orthodox community. There's more advice on this

here

.

Hope that's useful info, and please let me know if you feel it still fails to explain why the article was removed. -- Euryalus (talk) 00:56, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi there

@Rangasyd: Thanks for the message, and apologies, it was a misclick caused by reading a watchlist on a mobile device. I reverted the error immediately it occurred.[6] -- Euryalus (talk) 03:55, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

@Euryalus: Oh, thanks. Now my turn to apologise. I did not see the restore. Sorry. No offence meant. Thanks again. :-) Rangasyd (talk) 04:02, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

No worries. In passing I haven't edited or even read that article for years, so thanks for the trip down memory lane. -- Euryalus (talk) 04:04, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

G'day all, please be advised that throughout March 2017 the Military history Wikiproject is running its March Madness drive. This is a backlog drive that is focused on several key areas:

• tagging and assessing articles that fall within the project's scope
• updating the project's currently listed A-class articles to ensure their ongoing compliance with the listed criteria
• creating articles that are listed as "requested" on the project's various task force pages or other lists of missing articles.

As with past Milhist drives, there are points awarded for working on articles in the targeted areas, with barnstars being awarded at the end for different levels of achievement.

The drive is open to all Wikipedians, not just members of the Military history project, although only work on articles that fall (broadly) within the military history scope will be considered eligible. More information can be found here for those that are interested, and members can sign up as participants at that page also.

The drive starts at 00:01 UTC on 1 March and runs until 23:59 UTC on 31 March 2017, so please sign up now.

For the Milhist co-ordinators. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) & MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:24, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Andrew Lohrey has been editing about himself for a while - I am getting mightily annoyed no one seems to be picking up on the pandemic of subjects who seem to think they update their info... your advice required please JarrahTree 09:26, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

I have reverted - BLP with not a link or ref in sight, and no idea how wikipedia works. Less advice now, just a 'watch' list item please JarrahTree 09:30, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Has been resolved with a block by Doug Weller - we'll see where it all goes now JarrahTree 10:15, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, have also left them a message explaining COI and RS. -- Euryalus (talk) 12:05, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited HMS Liverpool (1758), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Brest. 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) 10:34, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 and Nick-D look at works on two facets of US military power Op-ed: TomStar81 on the Russian Revolution Timeline: This month in World War I

Please put this news on the Main page, the Party of current Dutch PM Mark Rutte won the elections. 46.70.205.85 (talk) 16:08, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

@46.70.205.85: thanks for the message. The Dutch election results are certainly significant enough to appear in the "In the News" section on the Main Page. There's a discussion on wording etc at this link. -- Euryalus (talk) 23:20, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

In this speedy decline, you say "Unfortunately speedy declined as has previously been nominated and tag removed. Please feel free to send to Prod or afd." It appears that the sole basis for declining the deletion was that it had been previously nominated. I'm not familiar with any limitations on speedy deletions being a one-shot process (unlike

Thanks, you're right, not sure what I was thinking there. While there's a bias in WP:DEL towards moving to other deletion discussions if a speedy deletion is previously declined, it is not by itself a once-in-a-lifetime option like PROD. Have deleted it now. -- Euryalus (talk) 19:41, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Re this young user, I'm afraid they're at it again. I don't see this ending well. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 07:59, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

@Voceditenore: thanks for keeping an eye on this. They're clearly not here to contribute to the encyclopaedia, and I share the concern with their self-disclosing of identifying personal information, given their age. As past warnings haven't had any effect, I've blocked their account and oversighted their personal info. A shame, because I think they are here in good faith; but what they were really looking for is Facebook. -- Euryalus (talk) 11:14, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

	The Admin's Barnstar
	Thanks...Huldra (talk) 08:51, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Could these impersonators[7][8] be the latest socks of Royer2356? Boomer Vial^{Holla! We gonna ball!} 21:36, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi. At a guess it's Cebr1979. -- Euryalus (talk) 21:59, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

It's actually neither of these, see User talk:DangerousJXD#Discussion at User:DangerousJXD3 for more detail. Not that it matters that much who these trolls really are. Sro23 (talk) 22:50, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi Sro23. Agree about it not really mattering. Apologies that you have to keep putting up with them. -- Euryalus (talk) 23:28, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi Euryalus,

I saw that you deleted the page called "EJIDA studios". I was wondering why you did this as this is a filming and educational institution which isn't allowed to fit the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you, BookCharger (talk) 11:12, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

There is nothing in the article to suggest this is an accredited educational institution, and nothing to suggest it meets

the general notability criteria. Am happy to provide you a copy for your userspace if you want to keep working on it, but recommend that you ultimately resubmit it via the Draft process, so that it can be reviewed for notability before returning to the main encyclopaedia. -- Euryalus (talk

) 11:51, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Ok, thanks, can you provide a copy for my userspace please.BookCharger (talk) 11:56, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Done, at User:BookCharger/EJIDA studios. Nice job on the layout by the way, only comment I'd add is you don't need references in the headers, they should be in the body of the text. -- Euryalus (talk) 12:15, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Sure, thanks for the tip:)BookCharger (talk) 12:32, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

check my recents - there is veritable mayhem and complete lack of understanding what wikipedia is about - the ip with 9- I am note sure where to start - it is a bit daunting JarrahTree 12:19, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

its ok Yunshui has done the job - and I also agree with the barnstar below - keep up the good work! JarrahTree 12:39, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

	The Admin's Barnstar
	You are a very nice administrator and you help make wikipedia a better place for everyone BookCharger (talk) 12:34, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:56, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Nick-D and Hawkeye7 look at air power and nuclear weaponry Op-ed: Hawkeye7 on Australia's part in the advance on the Hindenburg Line Timeline: This month in World War I

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited HMS Actaeon (1757), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Brest. 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) 09:54, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Just a quick "well done" for your recent edit over at the dog meat and lychee festival article. I actually emailed the functionaries about this just minutes after the posting, but for whatever reasons, they did not take action or reply. I considered taking it to AN/I but I felt that would attract way too much attention. Anyway, it is sorted now. The editor may need a word from someone about possibly using their real name and how risky this can be. DrChrissy ^(talk) 16:52, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

@DrChrissy: no problems, and thanks for looking out for this editor's privacy - I saw it on the functionaries thread when you posted it there. You're right re ANI, that would have given their info a wide and potentially unwanted audience. Functionaries thread is fine; you can also post to the oversight email address if preferred. Either way, it worked out ok and either of us can have a further conversation with the editor if required - they are entitled to post this info if they really want, but they need to know the risks beforehand. Thanks also for providing the opportunity to read the associated article - not something I'd heard of before. -- Euryalus (talk) 05:40, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Can't discuss this online.

Note that the recent suppression has been flagged with both oversight-l and emergency. There is very rarely an obviously "right" way to proceed, but either of these groups has authority to overturn the suppression immediately if in their view this is a better course. -- Euryalus (talk) 10:37, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Precious

Three years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:04, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited HMS Anglesea, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Breakwater. 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) 10:11, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

	A canon for you!
	For your help on improving the HMS Anglesey article, I present to you this time-appropriate cannon. Good job with the additional sources! SamHolt6 00:15, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

@SamHolt6:, wow, thanks. Never seen one of those before. Thanks also for creating this article, and the Baker Phillips one, which is what led me to the ship page. -- Euryalus (talk) 00:17, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 on Strategic Air Command doctrine Op-ed: Tomstar81 looks at a little-known aspect of World War I Timeline: This month in World War I

I'm first contacting you about it because you have made the block for Yanelazulu_.s. I have noticed an evading unblocked incarnation, Yanela_zulu_i also disruptively editing

Hmm for my own edification, it would also be useful to now if such a case would usually warrant an SPI case despite the obviously same identity, or if I would normally report such blatant evasion at AE? This is unclear to me despite just having read WP:EVASION again. This is not a case where a sock is used under a different name in order to make idenfification difficult or simulate consensus. Thanks again, — PaleoNeonate — 10:50, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Blocked, thanks for reporting. Re the question, usual practice would be to create an SPI, but the name similarity is obvious enough that posting somewhere like here is fine for a quick response. If there's a lot of socks an SPI is better as a more permanent record, and so that multiple editors can review over time. Also, better to create SPI's if there is any chance the sockpuppetry allegation could be questioned - it creates a suitable forum for discussion. -- Euryalus (talk) 11:04, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Thank you very much, — PaleoNeonate — 11:14, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Al Maha Petroleum is not eligible for a speedy deletion. The company is one of the largest in Oman and has over 200 locations. At the very least it needs to go through the deletion process and was not eligible for speedy deletion. Incaseitsmissing (talk) 13:06, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Not sure I agree, but no harm in the wider review. Have restored and is now at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Al Maha Petroleum. -- Euryalus (talk) 20:23, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

I Just logged in today after my last edit on 24 January only to find out that I have been banned from editing Horn of African pages. For the last 4 months I stayed away from Wikipedia because some of the editors treated me like I have nothing to say. All I did was to discuss with them politely and try to convince them so that we reach consensus by providing them multiple convincing points supported by reliable sources (almost all sources I use are neutral sources) written by well known scholars. However, I was bullied by some of these editors. They push for my indefinite block but none of them explained to me clearly by giving example diffs and clarify on how it violates Wikipedia rules, if indeed there is one I violated. llywrch in AN/I, regarding to the politics of Ethiopia said "....in that land tend to be settled not thru words or appeals to reason, but with fists, bullets, & extralegal measures.) In short, there be monsters & landmines here, & many people who might be attracted to improving articles on Ethiopia -- which is understandable, since it is a fascinating country rich in culture & history -- will find themselves getting their fingers burned not only by falling into an example of (2), but knowing little or nothing about it due to (1).".[9]. I agree with him and is the reason why I make long arguments with some of the editors, some even created multiple accounts to push for their agenda. Anyways, I have not checked Ethiopia related articles for 4 months and I will begin reviewing recent edits and for any issues I observe I will report to you or to other editors who specializes in Ethiopian articles and may be they will do the correction. However, one issue is that, as Llywrch said, there are very few Wikipedia editors monitoring Ethiopia (a nation with 100 million people with over 80 ethnic-groups) related pages, and those very few are not interested to tell history from all sides. I will appreciate it if you can give me a second chance and review my contributions. In the future may be I will make proposals to you or any other editors before I make any edits. As I used to do before I will support the proposals with quotes from Google books and will only add or make correction after editors seen the quotes themselves and when consensus is achieved. Thanks — EthiopianHabesha (talk) 15:37, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

@

WP:AN

so it can be reviewed by the community as a whole. I can also transfer across what you've posted here, if you wish.

Until the community agrees to lift the ban, please do not propose edits to Ethiopia-related pages, to any editor. Doing so would be a breach of the topic ban, and will likely result in a block from editing. Successfully appeal the ban first, before contributing further to Horn of Africa articles or discussion. -- Euryalus (talk) 19:39, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Ok please transfer it. In the closed AN/I [10] no diffs and policy shortcut is provided to propose the topic ban and also the editors who support the ban did not provide. It's too late to ask but may I know the diffs and policy used to support the topic ban proposal. Thanks — EthiopianHabesha (talk) 18:32, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

@EthiopianHabesha:: Done, now at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Topic_ban_appeal:_EthiopianHabesha. -- Euryalus (talk) 22:48, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Euryalus, the AN/I is closed before I get your response as to why you decided to propose the topic ban and finally ban me. Should I take the topic ban is justified:

1) based on the leading edit of the AN/I that resulted in the topic ban (as you said in the AN/I)? I showed here that it is based on false accusation over something that I never said.

2) because of NPOV issue and Advocacy as claimed by user Jytdog? Note that JD did not respond to my question here asking which topic the NPOV issue applies. If the ban is related to advocacy then JD also did not mention what he thinks I am advocating about.

3) Combativeness of which no diffs and policy shortcut is provided to support this justification

4) Not interested to edit collaboratively of which no diffs is provided to support this reasoning. I believe these examples [11], [12],[13] and here show that I tried my best to edit collaboratively even when the editors bullied me.

Euryalus, can you please let me know which of the four reasoning justified the topic ban? Thanks — EthiopianHabesha (talk) 14:53, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Mildly, I feel we've already covered this. The community consensus was that you should be topic banned from Horn of Africa articles. The reasons for the ban are as outlined by the various contributors in the ANI thread; some had different reasons to others, but the pretty unanimous view was to support the ban. The opening posts by Duqsene and Ms. Sarah Welch offer some fairly concise summaries of their specific reasoning, but if you want to know why other editors in that thread supported the ban you'd need to read their comments. There are arguments in the thread about

battleground behaviour

. If I were you you I'd focus on these to start, and would consider why the community felt your edits weren't meeting these policy standards.

When someone posts a thread at ANI, an administrators role is usually to a) assess if there is a community consensus for an action, b) determine if that action is policy-based and within reasonable bounds, and c) if so, carry it out. We are often described as janitors, getting out a mop to clean up a mess. Exactly how we clean up the mess can be up to others, as it is in this case. I imposed the topic ban because the community had reached a consensus in favour of it. The community reached this consensus based on a reasonable collective interpretation of editing policy,which found your editing in this area was disruptive. It wasn't any one single edit you made, or one single diff in the ANI thread. As the discussion makes clear, it was your editing history as a whole, which breached the policies as outlined in the paragraph above this one.

If you want to have the ban lifted, you will need to convince the community (ie not just me) that the concerns they had back in January aren't an issue any more. I doubt this can be done by arguing that editor A forgot to include a diff, or editor B didn't spend enough time reading some other edit you made. In fact, the community has just given a clear path to a successful ban appeal - by advising you to edit other topic areas for a while, so there's a solid contribution history that could justify removal of the ban. Up to you, but I reckon that's worth trying.

Hope the above is helpful. Happy to discuss further if required. -- Euryalus (talk) 20:08, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Oh, wait, it's a one-way IBAN? So I don't even get a chance to defend myself from anything that might be said about me by the other party? It gets better and better.... The Rambling Man (talk) 13:17, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

That's what he Committee has adopted, yes. If you find that the other party is saying anything about you on-wiki that could reasonably be described as inappropriate or offensive, please email the Committee and let us know. -- Euryalus (talk) 13:25, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

That's not going to happen, but you all know that this is overkill and completely unfair, especially given the clandestine nature of the discussion. A two-way ban would have been tolerable. Thanks for not making that abundantly clear beforehand. What a joke. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:27, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

And you do realise this can't stop me talking about any of this anywhere other than on English Wikipedia, nor if I do can it have any impact here, per the precise wording of the ruling. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:49, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Yes, that's in the wording of the motion. The en-WP arbitration committee doesn't have a dispute resolution role in other wikis, and for the most part wh,at people do entirely offwiki is entirely up to them. I say for the most part because there are some exceptions (eg. doxxing or serious personal harassment, in which case offwiki activities can be found to be relevant to onwiki ones). But I can't imagine that would apply in this instance, and if in some bizarro world it ever did, it would be the subject of a different resolution. So, short answer: you're right, the committee resolution applies only to the English Wikipedia, like any other iban. Euryalus (talk) 13:57, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Great, I have quite a few emails to reply to so it's helpful to know that. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:59, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

	The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
	Who knows how much vandalism talk ) 22:11, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Biggard (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Please review the editor's recent "unblock request" and consider whether revoking TPA may be appropriate. Thanks. General Ization ^Talk 01:48, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Nevermind, already done! Thanks. General Ization ^Talk 01:49, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Back next week. Limited internet access so thanks for any emails, posts etc, but replies might be delayed. -- Euryalus (talk) 23:54, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Note that per above, am inactive on the current Arbcom iban appeal. Have not reviewed or contributed to discussion of it, so questions etc should go to others. -- Euryalus (talk) 00:24, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Please take a look at this edit. Contains personal info like ph #s/email addys/websites/etc. Eager new editor a promo end-run?...I dunno, but probably needs to be wiped clean. Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 07:40, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

@Shearonink: hi, and thanks for the message. I'm out of town a few days, do you mind finding someone else to have a look at this? I have a vague memory of someone spamming this kind of thing before, so it might also be worth an SPI. -- Euryalus (talk) 10:11, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

I mean at

@Yashovardhan Dhanania: Hi, it was a misclick caused by trying to scroll through a watchlist on a mobile device. I reverted it immediately, but apologies for any inconvenience. -- Euryalus (talk) 09:03, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

No apologies needed. On another note, are you free to volunteer for a case there? Yashovardhan (talk) 09:23, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 looks at the Battle of Kokoda and US defence acquisition in the 1960s Op-ed: Hawkeye7 on the Battle of Messines Timeline: This month in World War I

The Bugle: Issue CXXXV, July 2017

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Nick-D looks at planning for the unthinkable Op-ed: TomStar81 on Russia's Provisional Government in World War I Timeline: This month in World War I

The Bugle: Issue CXXXVI, August 2017

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 on the Battle of Messines and recent Australian Army leadership; Nick-D on South African armour Op-ed: Nick-D talks photography Timeline: This month in World War I

The Bugle: Issue CXXXVII, September 2017

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Nick-D and Hawkeye7 look at two recent releases Op-ed: Hawkeye7 on ANZACs in the Third Ypres Offensive Timeline: This month in World War I

Greetings from the Military history WikiProject! Elections for the Military history WikiProject Coordinators are currently underway. As a member of the WikiProject you are cordially invited to take part by casting your vote(s) for the candidates on the election page. This year's election will conclude at 23:59 UTC 29 September. Thank you for your time. For the current tranche of Coordinators, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:39, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

So, how do we discuss your actions? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:56, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcome. I feel we had extensive discussions some months ago, and I don't have anything particular to add to them. All the best. -- Euryalus (talk) 21:21, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Okay, I'll make sure the community is aware of your transgressions in due course. That you continue to hold such positions as "oversight" and maintain a position on Arbcom given your infractions is beyond me. I'm pretty sure you don't want this to all become public, but if you do, that's fine. I suppose I could start an Arbcom case to get you de-sysopped, de-oversighted, etc for your abuse of you position, but it's all hushed up, so how do you wish to proceed? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:27, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Mate, I really can't advise you on dispute resolution methods for a complaint about me. I'd have an obvious conflict of interest in whatever answer I gave. You'd be better off asking your question of some other member of Arbcom. And of course I'd recuse myself from any relevant internal discussion, should one occur. -- Euryalus (talk) 09:50, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Well, as you know, I'm duty bound not to discuss the complaint on Wikipedia, we were all waiting with baited breath to hear what the Ombudsman said about the abuse of your position as an oversighter. What happened there? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:36, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your message, but see above - I'm not going to post on issues I'm recused from. All the best. -- Euryalus (talk) 21:24, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

I'll explain later when the current issue has blown over. My comments may sometimes be enigmatic, but not to those who know where I'm coming from. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:41, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

If you like, no need if it's something confidential. I'm a little surprised that you'd post this on a public noticeboard without explaining what it means. But I'm sure the world won't end. -- Euryalus (talk) 12:57, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited HMS Royal James (1671), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Anthony Deane (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:41, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi Euryalus, while working on Orpheus (1794 ship) I discovered that she had in 1826 transported the troops and their families of the (Royal?) "New South Wales Veterans" Companies/Corps to Sydney. This was a military unit of about 150 men. It was made up of veterans who agreed to join what would be a garrison unit in New South Wales. After the unit arrived in Sydney in 1826 it performed guard and other light duties until it was disbanded in 1833. WP does not have an article on this unit. Do you have any more/other info on it? Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 14:26, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

@Acad Ronin: actually I think I do somewhere. Not much, but I recall reading a few pars at least while writing William Baker (colonist). It's 1.30 am here so I'll have a look in the morning. Good luck with Orpheus in the mean time. -- Euryalus (talk) 14:33, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

@Acad Ronin: - quick update that still looking at this - have uncovered a mention of 1820s housing for the Royal Veterans, and also a commissariat specifically sent out from England in 1826. But the Royal Veterans reference is not detailed enough to determine if this is a discrete colonial entity or shorthand for individual veterans of earlier units (eg. NSW Marines, NSW Corps) now simply retired or farming in NSW. Give me another few days, but sources not presently as promising as I hoped. -- Euryalus (talk) 23:26, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for continuing to look. From what i have found, but not collated yet, it was a new unit, but one that drew particularly on veterans that had served in NSW before the end of the Napoleonic Wars, so there may be individual connections to previous NSW units, but not a formal organizational one. I have currently detoured into the Dutch Emigrant Artillery, where i have just found a great French source. When I get done with that I will add the NSW Veterans Companies to my list of things to do. I love obscure vessels and units — it's where there is some hope of finding great stories that haven't already been covered. Cheers, Acad Ronin (talk) 00:11, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I appreciate your love of obscurity from reading your tireless work on armed cutters. I find the sloops and frigates more interesting than the ships of the line, but sources are pretty average as you know. Unfortunately on NSW military units the really detailed government records that I have access to kind of end with Lachlan Macquarie, but will see if I can find a bio of Governor Darling, which might mention this unit. -- Euryalus (talk) 00:20, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

'Little Cassiobury', where Bladen Capel resided was on the edge of the estate.[[14]] I think the niece in question lived in the main house.[[15]] Like you though, I find it all a bit off-topic and wonder whether that information wouldn't be more at home in either Cassiobury House or Cassiobury Park. No strong feelings either way though. Regards--Ykraps (talk) 12:06, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

@Ykraps: Agree. AmWill soon be away the next couple of weeks but let's see how better to incorporate this Cassiobury stuff into the article on return. -- Euryalus (talk) 09:06, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

No worries; I don't think there's any urgency. BTW, I saw your edit to HMS Pearl [[16]] and wondered if there was any guidance this. In the past, I have used both countries and flagicons for ships and naval officers that served under both flags, but there doesn't seem to be any consistency. Not criticising, just wondering.--Ykraps (talk) 12:23, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi Checkusers and Checkuser clerks,

The Anti-Harassment Tools team is seeking input about building the Interaction Timeline feature.

We’re inviting you to join the discussion because you use similar tools such as the Editor Interaction Analyser and User compare report during sockpuppet investigations.

You can leave comments on the on wiki discussion page or send an email to the Anti-Harassment Tools team.

For the Anti-Harassment Tools team SPoore (WMF), Community Advocate, Community health initiative (talk) 19:39, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Please let us know if you wish to opt-out of all massmessage mailings from the Anti-harassment tools team.

	The Original Barnstar
	For those who don't have backdoor access to the conversations of the Secret and Highly Competent ArbCom Cabal, let it be known that Euryalus managed to cite Ovid in a recent conversation. That they did so in Mandelbaum's English is a courtesy on their part, for which we thank you. Drmies (talk) 15:11, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm not called Euryalus for nothing. Oh, wait ... -- Euryalus (talk) 15:40, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

DONT PICK UP THE HELMET

Picking up the helmet is what life is all about. -- Euryalus (talk) 21:35, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

^{[citation needed]} -- Softlavender (talk) 23:50, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Hawkeye75. James (^talk/_contribs) 09:35, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Recent external reviews Op-ed: TomStar81 on late 1917 naval warfare Timeline: This month in World War I

• https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/2017_AN/Incidents_Survey_Privacy_Statement

If you would like to take this survey, please sign up on this page, and a link for the survey will be mailed to you via Special:Emailuser.

• Sign up here to receive a link to a survey

Thank you on behalf of the Support & Safety and Anti-Harassment Tools Teams, Patrick Earley (WMF) talk 18:24, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Euryalus. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 19:33, 2 December 2017 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{

ygm

}} template.

Thanks. -- Euryalus (talk) 21:34, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Euryalus. Voting in the

2017 Arbitration Committee elections

is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The

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 in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

In his failed recent unban request,

@

This section

also references banned editors being expected to "leave Wikipedia."

Technically, a sleeper account with no edits doesn't breach the "edit" restriction. It might breach the "any and all circumstances" clause and the "leave Wikipedia" one. Overall though, it's a bit "meh." I don't see why they can't maintain a watchlist off their main account, but a no-edit sleeper is also not causing any harm. I'll ask around for any other views, but I reckon there's a case for doing nothing about this issue other than noting it. -- Euryalus (talk) 05:28, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

As we approach the end of the year, the Military History project is looking to recognise editors who have made a real difference. Each year we do this by bestowing two awards: the Military Historian of the Year and the Military History Newcomer of the Year. The co-ordinators invite all project members to get involved by nominating any editor they feel merits recognition for their contributions to the project. Nominations for both awards are open between 00:01 on 2 December 2017 and 23:59 on 15 December 2017. After this, a 14-day voting period will follow commencing at 00:01 on 16 December 2017. Nominations and voting will take place on the main project talkpage: here and here. Thank you for your time. For the co-ordinators, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:35, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Recent external reviews Op-ed: TomStar81 on the Halifax Explosion of 1917 Timeline: This month in World War I

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 18:13, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

I’m a bit confused by your reply here. Of course, users have a right to prune there talk pages, but

Sorry, you're correct, reading through the page history I mistakenly thought you'd restored the warning to his usertalk page, after he'd deleted it. Will amend the comment. -- Euryalus (talk) 03:23, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Greetings,

"Military history" is one of the most important subjects when speak of sum of all human knowledge. To support contributors interested in the area over various language Wikipedias, we intend to form a user group. It also provides a platform to share the best practices between military historians, and various military related projects on Wikipedias. An initial discussion was has been done between the coordinators and members of WikiProject Military History on English Wikipedia. Now this discussion has been taken to Meta-Wiki. Contributors intrested in the area of military history are requested to share their feedback and give suggestions at Talk:Discussion to incubate a user group for Wikipedia Military Historians.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:29, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 10:17, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Hello there! Shearonink (talk) wishes you & yours the the very best of the season!
Whether you celebrate Christmas, Diwali, Hanukkah, Kwanzaa, Festivus (for the rest of us!) or even the Saturnalia, here's to hoping your holiday time is wonderful and that the New Year will be an improvement upon the old. CHEERS!

Share these holiday wishes by adding {{

subst:User:Shearonink/Holiday

}}~~~~ to your friends' talk pages.

Shearonink (talk) 19:32, 24 December 2017 (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.