User talk:Euryalus/Archive3

Akerman article

RE: your comment on my talk.

Thanks for clarify, you really cleared things up. I understand the experimental thing now, and recognize it's off limits. Let's see if someone reverts it shall we?

Martin0001 (talk) 05:10, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Kapap Reply

I have tried to leave messages on the Discussion page, from work so I did not log in. The unregistered contributor does not reply. I have also left message on their talk page to no avail. Is it just me or does it seem as though this person is getting away with murder here. I simply added some relevant information which meets wiki guidlines and now I am accused of edit warring? Where is the neutrality in any of this? --KravTeacher (talk) 05:40, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I have no problem with the reports being combined, but I consider it refactoring if it's not made clear that this was done. I guess it's a pet peeve? In my opinion, as per the the original intent, the order of the reports, and the fact that they were made separately should be made apparent. And I think it would be good to address how this is going to be resolved to Krav who has asked for help, been responsive and communicative, and is trying to work within the rules. He's posted on the anon's talk page, and on the article talk page. People get frustrated after a while. ChildofMidnight (talk) 07:29, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. We'll see what happens. The article is poorly sourced generally. That being said I'm more sympathetic to someone trying to add a poorly sourced bit than someone reverting to an unsourced version without explanation. ChildofMidnight (talk) 07:54, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I understand. I want to thank both of you for trying to help. While I do believe Moshe is an authroity on the subject, I can see why it might be percieved as less than objective. However, I stand by my original assessment of him. As an Israeli, living in Isreal, and a long time student of martial arts; I think he deserves a place. He is no way connected with Kapap or any of their people and his article has been on the internet for some time. In fact, long before I began trying to use it as an external link. ChildofMidnight has sent me some other reference material. I will go thru' it and check it for accuracy. Thank you again. --75.167.51.228 (talk) 20:34, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I've added a suggestion to the Kapap discussion. If you have time, will you please take a look and let me know what you think? It would really help me if you have any suggestions on how to put it together. I have also asked ChildofMidnight to help. Thank you --KravTeacher (talk) 20:54, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thank you for the barnstar - much appreciated! – ukexpat (talk) 00:36, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXIV (December 2008)

The December 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 02:52, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

UH Racing

Hi,

an article I created has recently been redirected, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/UH_Racing

would it be possible for me to make the corrections to the article under WP:V, WP:NPOV and WP:NOR

the original request was stated for being non-notable 'Non-notable. Formula SAE/Formula Student is a university-level engineering and racing program. It's specific participating universities and teams are not notable. The359 (talk) 00:31, 29 December 2008 (UTC)'

but the UH Racing team were the first in the world to produce a hydrogen powered racing car, and race it in an international competition. This can be elaborated more in the artcilce with many sources.

If it is possible to make changes were do I edit the article or will it be reinstated for a number of days.

If not thankyou for your time reading this.

Ian. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Burgeian (talk • contribs) 00:11, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Replied on your talk page. Euryalus (talk) 05:55, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Unprotection of Zombie

Yesterday, when you removed the semi-protection from Zombie, you commented, "Semi-protection removed for now - let's see how that goes". It's gone as I expected. Two anon vandals have already vandalized the page, the first one less than three hours after the protection was removed. You might consider adding the protection back. Otherwise, as you can see from older history, it's a daily chore for editors to remove the vandalism from this article. travisl (talk) 17:18, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Alas, you're right. Hope spings eternal (a bit like zombies perhaps), but I've restored the semi-protection for now. Euryalus (talk) 19:43, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Good one! That joke was dead on. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:52, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Did you die laughing? And do zombies eat breakfast with their fingers? No, they eat their fingers separately! (wait in vain for applause, then shuffle quietly off stage). Euryalus (talk) 21:23, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Richard Pryor and Johnny Carson are rolling in their graves after that one... By the way, did you hear about the zombie that was totally exhausted? He was really dead on his feet. What do you call a Zombie who's waiting at the door? A dead ringer. What did the zombie's friend say when he introduced him to his girlfriend? Good grief, where did you dig her up? What did the zombie eat after its teeth were pulled out? The dentist.ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:47, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Talk page comments

Hi. I'm aware you've had disputes with User:Rebecca in the past but this is unnecessary given she's left Wikipedia. At best it only prolongs ill feeling over a past disagreement. Would you consider amending your goodbye message to something more neutral? Euryalus (talk) 21:42, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Did you noticed she came back from her "retirement" just to revert me attack me one last time in one edit summary? Please find something else to fixate upon. --Damiens.rf 12:40, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Fixate on? I've never interacted with you before. Asking you to remove a borderline personal attack on a departed user is hardly "fixating" on you. Euryalus (talk) 20:06, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not saying you are. I'm just quotting her attack on me. --Damiens.rf 12:31, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Don't talk shit, Damiens.rf. You said "Please find someone else to fixate upon". It's right there, two posts up. Need a diff? Here:[1]

If you were quoting Rebecca, you'd have put it in quotes. But you couldn't do that, because you weren't quoting her; you were paraphrasing her: she said "something" not "someone".

You recycled Rebecca's comment in order to accuse Euryalus of fixating on you. You could at least have the guts to admit it, instead of expecting us to swallow a bald-faced lie. Hesperian 13:15, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I didn't said "someone" either. Where did you take that? By the way, thanks for assuming good faith next time. And for avoiding the edit-summaries attacks as well. --Damiens.rf 13:45, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. I take it you decline to remove your personal attack on Rebecca. As another editor has removed it for you citing WP:NPA, the issue seems to be resolved. Euryalus (talk) 19:57, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Not an advert

I am not advertisng the link is to do with the stuff on the page —Preceding unsigned comment added by Royalcorpsa2009 (talk • contribs) 11:38, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Talk pages are for specific suggestions about improving the article. They are not for the random addition of related material, even if that material makes passing mention of the subject. Talk page guidelines can be found here.

If you have specific sentences or material you'd like to add to any article, feel free to outline them on the article talk page. But per the warnings above and this content guideline, please stop adding this link to pages for which it has no particular relevance. Euryalus (talk) 11:42, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Kanonkas

Thank you Euryalus for voting in my successfully closed RfA! I'm glad that you trust me. Ping me if you need anything! Best regards, --Kanonkas :  Talk  20:16, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Regarding edit

You immediately removed the following addition I made to the "fast food" page.

---

"Not everyone is trying to avoid fast-food. Some are simply trying to find the best tasting, most satisfying fast-food available. Attempting to fill that need is a volunteer project, FastFoodCritic. The FFC website provides nutrition information for each item being reviewed, however the project's main focus is judging the food's taste, value, preparation and delivery."

---

Can you tell me why this was removed, and why you said it was "advertising"?

FastFoodCritic is a reputable source, with volunteers reviewing fast-food in their spare time. The site is an information/review site, and they don't have any goods or products for sale. FFC has been recognized by many of the bigger food networks since it launched 10 months ago, and I felt it deserves to mentioned alongside the other sources mentioned.

Thank you for any explanation. I'm new here. :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Happycats (talk • contribs) 09:48, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

EDIT: Hello again Euryalus. :)

After reading the guidelines again I think I understand more clearly what does and doesn't belong in certain categories. I apologize for making a mistake. I was eager to add a relevant site which I myself am a fan. Perhaps it could qualify as a reference or external link on the subject? Anyway, I will try to do a better job next time. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Happycats (talk • contribs) 10:20, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi. You beat me to responding - I was just reading the fastFoodCritic website before replying. I must say I agree its sacrilege to order a turkeyburger at a hamburger joint. There's a few problems with the paragraph, and sorry that I didn't explain them more clearly. Sorry also for the "stream of consciousness" below, I'm typing this on a handheld.

Firstly, an advertising link need not be one that directly sells products (though it can be). It might also be a link which is aimed at advertising the website itself, which this certainly reads as. I aprpeciate this may not have been the itnention, and if not the problem can be addressed with some rewording of the text. Secondly, its not clear how reliable a source FastFoodCritic is - I couldn't find how it is funded or confirmation it was independent of the review subjects. If its reviews are not independent of the fast food industry, it does exist to promote certain products. It doesn't read like this is true, but its still a concern.

Thirdly, with due respect to it and its hard review work, its notability is questionable. It is not clear what point its inclusion is making - is it to illustrate the spawning of a fast food consumer monitoring and reporting industry? Is it making the point that not all fast food is unhealthy? if so, there are other more mainstream sources to support these cases. The article is not a repository for every mention of fast food, and whatever text is included needs to be illustrating a point of some kind. And lastly, the text contains some weasel words like "Not everyone" and "some are". these would need clarification (not everyone? who?).

These are just my opinion as an editor, and you don't have to agree with me on any of them. It might be worth doing a mild rewording of the paragraph and proposing it at Talk:Fast food to see what others think. If there's support for including it in whatever form, I'll not stand in your way. :) Euryalus (talk) 10:35, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

The Game of Champions (card game)

Please reinstate this article. This has grown to be a very popular game is very relevant. Can you explain why you deleted it? Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.59.204.131 (talk) 20:21, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi. Sorry for the delay in responding, I was away for a couple of days. The "Game of Champions" article was nominated as an uncontroversial deletion on 4 January, by Jfire. His reason was

"No evidence of notability; WP:NOT#HOWTO; appears to be made up."

If no one contests such a proposed deletion after five days, the article is likely to be removed. That's what happened here, and from a read of the article and a check of likely sources, I agree with Jfire's assessment.

The material wasn't offensive in any way, but any new version of it would need to include both references and something to expand the page beyond a rules list. If you want to create a new version that meets these criteria, I'm happy to restore a copy of the old one in a userspace so you have something to work from. I'd suggest you create an account and I'll make a copy of the page in a subpage of that.

Otherwise, I hope the above helps explain why the page was removed. Euryalus (talk) 22:11, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

No content in Category:Unassessed-Class Ports articles

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Category:Unassessed-Class Ports articles, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Category:Unassessed-Class Ports articles has been empty for at least four days, and its only content has been links to parent categories. (CSD C1).

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Category:Unassessed-Class Ports articles, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here CSDWarnBot (talk) 22:12, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Assistance/Second opinion

Hello. I'm typing this message to you because I like to have a second opinion.

Anders.adermark (talk · contribs) is insisting on adding this link to the Yahtzee article, but I considered the link as spam/irrelevant. I told him to read WP:SPAM and WP:EL and look at the Scrabble article as an example before reinstating the link, but I don't think he got my message right and is still insisting on his link because he said, "I can't find one place where you can play Yahtzee online without paying or registering, and I have searched a lot. That's why I wrote the game, to be able to share with other's sharing the same interest."

I've asked Tikiwont for some assistance on this matter, but he said that I either speak to him directly about it (which I won't do anymore) or put the matter on the article's talk page (which I doubt will get an immediate response). Do I have take Tikiwont's advice of putting the matter to the Yahtzee talk page or do you think the link is inappropriate under WP:EL? - 上村七美 (Nanami-chan) | talkback | contribs 16:59, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

First article

HEY! My article went away and ( if i understand why) YOU did it! - Why did you make my article get erased? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Planeteer12 (talk • contribs) 10:32, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi, and welcome to Wikipedia. I've removed your "article" because it is clearly a test edit,a nd not an actual encyclopedia page. There's some guidance on writing your first article here, which might be helpful before creating a new page. Let me know if you have any questions. Euryalus (talk) 10:36, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

YOU DID IT AGAIN! STOP THAT!

STOP WITH THE DELETING ALREADY! - I know the article seems like a "Test Page" for the time being, I haven't decided what it will be about yet is all! - once I come up with a subject I can make it better i think. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Planeteer12 (talk • contribs) 10:39, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps the above wasn't clear. Wikipedia articles need to be about a subject - they can't just be "My first article" and a collection of random text. If you can't think of a topic to write about, you might find something at Wikipedia:Requested articles. Alternatively, have a look around and find an existing article you have an interest in and which you can expand a little. There's some basic rules for adding cotnent to Wikipedia, which can be found here. But put simply - this is an encyclopedia and its articles must have a topic. If there's a subject you think should be covered, or is covered but not well enough, feel free to create an article on it or add to one. But don't just create test or nonsense pages as you've been doing.

This is not intended as an unfriendly message, just some guidance on what Wikipedia is about. let me know if its still unclear, or if I can help in any other way. Euryalus (talk) 10:44, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Ivor F/F Ivor

Re your change in Candidates of the New South Wales state election, 2003. Just on this perennial candidate - he's run under both "F Ivor" and "Ivor F"; I have no idea of the logic behind this, but the Electoral Commission confirms here that in the case of NSW 2003 he was running as "F Ivor". Frickeg (talk) 21:50, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Bizarre, and thanks for picking that up. I remember him running as Ivor F, and faintly recall a debate on the ABC about whetehr someone using a single letter as a surname was sufficiently identified to be a candidate. I didn't realise he had also used other variants such as F Ivor. Should have checked but thought it was effectively a typo on the 2003 page. That will teach me to always check the sources, even for what appear to be obvious points. Euryalus (talk) 03:57, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Taj El-Din Hilaly edit

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Taj_El-Din_Hilaly&diff=252360309&oldid=252358490

What was "Although the visa was temporary, it was routinely until 1988 when then" meant to mean? SmithBlue (talk) 11:10, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

The word "reissued" was missing. Thanks for pointing this out. Euryalus (talk) 11:23, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXV (January 2009)

The January 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 03:46, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

the warnings

you said my previous posts were vandalisms......WHY!!!??? how is that vandalising?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Omgitsthomas (talk • contribs) 05:22, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

The definition of vandalism is "any addition, removal, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia." You edited Zimbabwe to state it was one of two countries whose name started with a Y. As this is demonstrably false, I think it fits the definition of vandalism fairly well. Euryalus (talk) 05:44, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

The Z countries

I have a huge map that shows all of the countries at the bottom and i saw 2!! -_- —Preceding unsigned comment added by Omgitsthomas (talk • contribs) 06:12, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

WP:AIV

Hi. Just a question to help me out, but you declined this request which was fair enough (my fault for reporting so quickly) but the user was blocked just after your decline. What's the procedure here, or is it not hard and fast? M♠ssing Ace 23:37, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi. As a rule of thumb anyone should receive at least the final warning, so they are aware of the cosnequences if they continue to vandalise. However, where its an obvious vandalism-only account it can be a bit variable - if the account clearly has no purpose other than damaging articles and has received multiple warnings (with or without a final one), why wait for that one last attack before blocking? Vandalism after a final warning is the "letter of the law", but preventing disruption to Wikipedia is the spirit.

I appreciate this is not much help. If you give the finalw arning and then see what happens you'll always be on the safe side, but sometimes (like this time) vandals will be blocked before they get that far. Euryalus (talk) 23:44, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Okay, thanks! I just don't want to rush at reporting but this seemed a clearly bad account and needed to be stopped. I'll make sure I try to follow the warning process next time. Thanks again. M♠ssing Ace 23:47, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

RFA Thankspam

Hi Euryalus, Many thanks for your support in my RFA, and for reconsidering from your original neutral. Sorry for not saying this in the RFA, but yes I realise that working at CSD will involve declining some overenthusiastic deletion suggestions. There's a full glitzy Oscar style version of my acceptance speech here. Thanks WereSpielChequers 20:06, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

No worries. Congratulations on the outcome. Euryalus (talk) 21:40, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi Euryalus, re your query in my guestbook. I've long wanted a Chequers Tree, but they aren't known for their communication skills. Then it struck me that lycanthrope might be the solution. So thats how I wound up as a lycanthropic loquacious fruit tree. Some other possible meanings feature on my user page. WereSpielChequers 09:18, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Turner

Thanks for letting me know! Frickeg (talk) 21:26, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

i'm sorry about changing the page but she lived in chester 4 awhile because she did a movie with my best friendharas (talk) 13:05, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

A-Class discussion

Hi, we're starting the discussion on A-Class here today, thanks for signing up! I hope you can present your views. Thanks, Walkerma (talk) 07:53, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXVI (February 2009)

The February 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:12, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

User:Wrist Instability

Resolved

Wrist Instability (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

While you're in the mood to prevent blocked users from editing their own pages, I wonder if you'd mind taking care of this one? He continues soapboxing despite being told not to. Thank you! Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 10:50, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Done already, by another admin. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 11:33, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry I missed your messsage - I'd already logged off. Euryalus (talk) 19:45, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Piracy participation update

Hello Euryalus/Archive3,

WikiProject Piracy is currently undergoing some updates and changes, and we are trying to find out who is still active in the project. You are currently listed as a participant on the list of participants, and we would like for you to update your status. Please move your name to the section that best describes your activity in the project:

• Active - still active and interested within the scope of the WikiProject.
• Semi-Active - still active on Wikipedia, but not as active in regards to the WikiProject.
• Former Members - a catch-all classification for those editors who are not active on Wikipedia, those that are still on Wikipedia, but no longer part of this WikiProject, or those that have otherwise not moved their names to another classification yet.

Thank you,
Adolphus79 (talk) 16:50, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Nominations for the Military history WikiProject coordinator election

The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process has started; to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 (UTC) on 13 March!
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 18:48, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

User talk:Spyro02

Just an fyi on your note at User talk:Spyro02. The AfD is already closed, as the article was speedied and salted. I left a note for Spyro02 clarifying that, and letting him/her know that WP:DRV is the place for any appeal, not the AfD. --Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:57, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Jones in the Fast Lane

An article that you have been involved in editing, Jones in the Fast Lane, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jones in the Fast Lane. Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Rogerb67 (talk) 23:12, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification. I have no strong view either way - online references are limited but this may simply reflect the age of the game. Euryalus (talk) 01:55, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

I realise you don't have a strong view, but do still care to add an oppose as you added a little to the article after the discussion came up? Timeshift (talk) 03:31, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

I've added a comment. I think the game is notable, but I don't think the sources are quite there yet. Someone with a better background in videogame history will hopefully come forward with some. I also think the debate is heading towards either keep or non consensus (default keep), so the article will be around a while yet. I downloaded a version on the weekend, but got bored pretty fast :) Euryalus (talk) 23:58, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

How was my page vandalism?

Would you have the tenacity to say that to my face? And how do you know it was vandalism? Are you a mind-reader or something? 'Cause I certainly ain't.--Smokie Bakie (talk) 10:42, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

The "article" was a lengthy recitation of a dream you once had, where you meet a girl and your parents buy you a games console. It made no pretence of being an encyclopedia article. However if you disagree with the deletion you should take it to deletion review. Euryalus (talk) 11:40, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Military history WikiProject coordinator election

The Military history WikiProject coordinator election has started. We will be selecting coordinators from a pool of eighteen to serve for the next six months. Please vote here by 23:59 (UTC) on Saturday, 28 March! Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 00:50, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Gravity Entertainment Scam site

First of all, if you checked the new links properly, you will see that they also contain links to official court documents from government websites AND the COURT documents copied and shown on the blog in addition give original shots of court documents as well which are good for evidence in courts of justice, so what's the problem then with WIKI??? Do you also suggest the information on Sarah Fisher's website and WIKI entry are false and the SEC website and the court websites and databased in Florida lie and are not reliable enough for the Wiki Project. What about an inexistend GRAVITY company website - does that round up a picture?! You seem to be either questioning a little bit too much or too little but indirectly working for Gravity and their goals. No matter what, they have used the ficticious information provided in an unconfirmed old WIKI entry to prove legitimacy they don't deserve and you are aiding their procedure in scamming millions of dollars from small and institutional clients. Congratulations! WiVictim 02:30, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your message. No need to use caps in your posts. Some responses:

• Blogs are not reliable sources. Documents posted on blogs may (or may not) be accurate copies of the originals, but to put their verifiability beyond doubt they need linking or referencing from the original source or from another source that meets the RS requirements (for example, a mainstream media outlet).
• I have no idea whetehr the material on Sarah Fisher's website is true or not, as I've never heard of her outside of this article and your post above. Its not a question of truth but of what can be confirmed by reliable sources (that phrase again). Blogs and personal websites are not considered reliable by Wikipedia.
• I have never heard of Gravity Entertainment, outside of the poorly sourced article you created here.
• Lastly, this is an encyclopedia, not an anti-scam advocacy website. I applaud people who try to warn others of scams, but they need to do so in the appropriate venues.

Now to the WP:BLP problem. Your article alleges potentially criminal behaviour by individuals and companies. It does so without any sources except blog entries and a single link to a government website which confirms only that a company has been sanctioned in two US states. To quote from the BLP policy: Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons—whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion.'

If you can find reliable sources to support the material you want to include, go right ahead and put it back in. But as long as you're sourcing it only from blogs, it fails the above test, and will be removed.

Happy to discuss further if you wish, or you can raise it at the biographies of living persons noticeboard -- Euryalus (talk) 05:00, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Dear Euryalus, thank you for your informative response. Let me state first, my usage of “caps” was not intended to shout at anybody, nor did I ever want to insult somebody. Second, the article in question (Gravity) was not created by me and was poorly sourced from scratch. However, exact same initial Wiki-article was (mis-)used to prove legitimacy to potential investors of Gravity Entertainment. So the entry was questionable from the beginning. Since people looking for this company would find the Wiki-article well listed with search engines, they might have gotten a false impression about an enterprise. I know of people who have lost quite a lot of money. I have done my share of alerting the public and tried to put some effort into it. All documents (also given with the mentioned blog) are court documents and subject to maintenance by the clerk of the court in the relevant districts the judgments were obtained - the regular legal procedure would be to call up the mentioned district courts to verify the documents, but I guess we will not include phone numbers as proper Wiki-references. I am done with these scam artists and have no intention to put more effort in it than I have already made. I am sorry for the inconvenience I have caused to you and would still want to honestly thank you for your administrative efforts. I know too good, how difficult of a job it is to keep order … which also applies to restricting and regulation public information according to policies as provided with Wiki’s. Good luck for you future! WiVictim 05:05, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Immortal Technique - Revolutionary Vol. 3

Question: How is "Revolutionary Vol. 3" by Immortal Technique a meaningless topic if its about an album by a very well-known artist. Curious Lil Drift (talk) 07:18, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi. The problem was not the topic so much as the article content, which consisted entirely of "Come out soon!". If you would like to create an article on "Revolutionary Vol. 3" which has more content than the one I deleted, go right ahead. Euryalus (talk) 07:58, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Minor point

But, without a source, how do we know Suzette Spencer‎ not a Quaker Sunday School teacher being maligned? I'd suggest the standard for removing unreferenced things under BLP is "if this were untrue, is it likely to be hurtful or libellous".--Scott Mac (Doc) 22:04, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi. There's a substantial number of sources for Suzette Spencer being a porn star - inevitably, porn stars are one area where a Google search is pretty comprehensive. :)

I haven't added any of them to the article myself as I'm at work and they're not links I really want to open from here. Will do so when I get home, for the sake of good referencing.

I have not found a source for the Playboy December 2000 claim but considered that if you were a porn star, a claim that you appeared in Playboy is not contextually a negative thing. No doubt a review of the online material will eventually substantiate this point.

Happy to discuss further - if you feel strongly about it I'd be happy to remove the article and simply restore it this evening when I can legitimately open the links to source it. Euryalus (talk) 22:20, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Portable drilling rig

Thanks for redirecting this - a good solution indeed. Sandolsky (talk) 14:25, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Mersey57

Hi, Thanks for looking at this, I guess the issue is more that this is a re occurring problem against another user as shown here...? Regards,  Badgernet  ₪  14:56, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry I missed your message - had already logged off. You were right, the problem continued and the account has now been blocked indefinitely. Thanks for keeping an eye on it. Euryalus (talk) 19:34, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Looks like there is a reoccurring theme going on. Besties,  Badgernet  ₪  13:24, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXVII (March 2009)

The March 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 02:30, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

User talk:Yyem

Hey, the above user is being affected by a hardblock you placed on 194.176.105.39; it's marked as a CU block, so I'm assuming you know more about this than I do. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 16:25, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Another one caught by your hardblock of 194.176.105.39

See User talk:Cwray. As I have no idea which person your hardblock was intended to stop, I cannot compare this accounts editing patterns to anything else. Since you know what you are looking for, could you please respond to his unblock request, and grant the WP:IPEXEMPT if appropriate? Thanks. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 17:26, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Done, though it is not in fact my IP-block - it was Dominic's, and my sole contribution was to briefly vary it to lock the IP talk page from template abuse. There are relevant comments on this here and here. Other than User:Cwray who appears to be a genuine editor, I have no view either way on unblock requests for accounts through this IP. Having regard for Dominic's comments in the links above, if anyone feels an unblock or IPexempt is warranted they need not ask me first. Euryalus (talk) 20:16, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

talkback

Hello, Euryalus. You have new messages at Chzz's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

 Chzz  ►  14:28, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

deletions by "merger" into article Serratiopeptidase

Quotation from your comment at Talk:Serratiopeptidase :- ":Thanks for taking the time to find the various references you list above. If you think an article requires expansion and you believe you have reliable sources for the changes, by all means go ahead and do them. If there is disagreement over your additions and theya re reverted, bring them here to discuss and seek consensus." I had written long articles with numerous references to reliable sources, but they were entirely deleted by forcible "merger" (over my protest) into this defective, meager article. This is already an ongoing case of disagreement, and I am requesting that you take a look at the materials deleted when they were "merged". When you write "bring them here to discuss and seek consensus" do you mean for me to paste the whole articles (many paragraphs long) onto this page, or what? Or would a link to a previous version from the "article history" be sufficient?

Also, the article Hans Alfred Nieper which was linked to this article was likewise deleted by the same legal-vandal character who deleted these articles of mine; this article Hans Alfred Nieper was largely written by a professor who had written much of one of the articles deleted by "merger" into the remaining "Serratiopeptidase" article.0XQ (talk) 01:56, 10 April 2009 (UTC)71.76.32.220 (talk) 01:49, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

RFA thanks

My RFA passed today at 61/5/4. Thanks for participating in my RFA. I appreciate all the comments I received and will endeavor to justify the trust the WP community has placed in me. Have a nice day. :-) AdjustShift (talk) 21:13, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Balajijayaraman (talk) 16:59, 12 April 2009 (UTC) Thanks

hi euryalus, thanks for the detailed explanation. i will go through the link which you gave. As you said, Lyrics plays an important role, since there is no Tamil film without songs. Let me explain to your questions one by one.

The problems with the links are they are not from an official website linked to the actual movies
yes, there are 5-6 movie released per month or even more. There wont be even official websites for some movies. this site is separately dedicated for all Tamil movie song lyrics. We are separate team of 5 members working to add lyrics on day to day basis. Even general public people can contribute to it.

its not immediately clear why the lyrics are important enough for a link to a website with their lyrics
you can see that each songs have lyrics of about half a page. Each film will have atleast 5-6 songs. So thought not to have much content over Wikipedia and make it a mess over here.

if there's support for them go right ahead and keep adding them in
i am sure we will get good support, but only from certain group of people. Because, i don't know any English films that have songs with lyrics (albums are separate ones, hope i am right). So don't know how many people will suport if its a general public option. anyway will try it out.

Thanks once again. Balajijayaraman (talk) 16:55, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Hijackers in th September 11 attacks

No problem. I didn't even to notice it.Aquila89 (talk) 09:57, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Succession box headers

I've stopped. But the same cannot be said for the other party. Digestible (talk) 22:12, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Hopefully this can be resolved via discussion at the Austpolitics page (or anywhere else really). There's an argument either way, but it doesn't seem so urgent that it must be resolved in the next couple of hours. Euryalus (talk) 22:15, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Where's this page? I think the category should be removed until the argument determines how the category should appear. The Wurdalak (talk) 23:07, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

The discussion is currently at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Australian politics. I don't personally have a view either way - just wanted to bring the edit war to a halt to let calm discussion occur. Euryalus (talk) 02:06, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Lard in popular culture

Hi Euryalus

regarding your change to the wikipedia page on lard here:

23:25, 22 April 2009 Euryalus (talk | contribs) (18,278 bytes) (rm good faith but unsourced addition) (undo)

would urban dictionary be a reliable source? 80.42.170.205 (talk) 14:58, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi, and sorry for the delayed response. There's no ironclad rule against it but generally Urban Dictionary would fail the policy on reliable sources because it does not "have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". That doesn't make the definitions there wrong per se, just potentially unreliable. A word or phrase with genuine currency would be extremely likely to also be defined somewhere other than Urban Dictionary, so anything reliant on UD alone as a source is unlikely to be acceptable. Euryalus (talk) 05:22, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I guess I need to start looking for a reliable source then =P 80.42.170.205 (talk) 14:03, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Nice quote

This is very true. (although probably not so pertinent to the Michelle Leslie afd). Nicely put. --Merbabu (talk) 12:07, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

True, though there's relevance in the quoter.[2] I agree with UncleG re the importance of removing unsourced material from BLP's rather than simply commenting on it. The "stop talking from the sidelines and do something!" message is one he seems to put forward often, and though the wording might be a bit aggressive the principle is kind of right. That said, Wikipedia is a big place occupied entirely by volunteers, and we could all carry out essential tasks for the next hundred years and not get everything done. So no one deserves criticism for not having done any one important task provided they were doing some other important task within the constraints of time, interest and expertise. Per WP:BLP an editor should copyedit an article like this as well as commenting on it but failure to do doesn't invalidate their AfD input (or any other useful things they might spend their time doing).Euryalus (talk) 12:22, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh - I missed that it was UncleG. It's a good one.--Merbabu (talk) 12:34, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

IP block exemption - thank you!

I've just checked whether it's working, having spotted a typo to be fixed, and it is. I'm grateful for your help, and yes, I do promise I won't do anything bad with the privilege. Kay Dekker (talk) 12:01, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

No worries. Euryalus (talk) 12:05, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

helping new contributors rather than rubbishing their efforts

Hi,

You undid a change I made which is based on intimate (no pun intended) knowledge of the escort business. What do you know about this business? You say that the material I added is unsourced but it would be helpful to know what kind of sources you are looking for. Do you want the names and contact numbers of the numerous people who have fallen victim to these escort agency scams? I have been a regular user of Wikipedia for many years as a reader but this is the first time that I have actually felt strongly enough about something and had a deep enough knowledge that others probably wouldn't have to actually contribute. While I respect people who have been contributing for a long time I don't think it's appropriate for long time contributors to rubbish the contributions of new people. For a great project such as Wikipedia to go from strength to strength requires the experienced contributors to assist the newer people in improving their contributions but not to rubbish them and delete them as worthless. You say that Wikipedia is not a “how to” manual but all I have done is provide useful and relevant information on the subject concerned. I’m sorry to say this and I don’t mean to be rude but I think your intervention in deleting my entry is arrogant and heavy handed. As a new contributor I welcome your help and advice on how to improve my contribution for the benefit of all concerned, perhaps by telling me what kind of references would make my contribution of a better standard. However, deleting my contribution entirely on a subject that I know a great deal about and which you probably know next to nothing about, does little justice to the whole idea of Wikipedia as a resource for the people by the people. I hope you understand where I am coming from and take my comments in the sincere manner that they are meant.

I look forward to your advice and help in making my future contributions to Wikipedia of the best possible standard.

Many thanks.

Hagis69 (talk) 04:25, 3 May 2009 (UTC)Hagis69

Hi, and thanks for your message. I'm sorry you feel your contribution was "rubbished" - that certainly wasn't the intent. The problem with what you added was it was not verifiable from reliable sources. Essentially, all material in Wikipedia needs to be referenced from somewhere else, and that "somewhere else" needs to be a source independent of the material and with a record of reliability. So for example, if the New York Times did an article on escort agency scams, or an academic wrote a book on them, or a credible government agency posted warnings of what to watch for, the material directly referenced from those sources might be able to be included.

I'm not saying what you added was wrong - I have no idea either way. However, your or my personal knowledge of an issue is not sufficient to reference material - its called original research. I know nothing about this topic and I'm happy to believe your statement that you know a lot about it. That makes you well-placed to contribute to the article but only if what you want to add is supported by reliable sources as outlined above.

I notice you've re-added the matewrial with two sources attached. Unfortunately neither are particularly reliable sources - the SAAFE page is a self-published website and while I'm sure its well-meaning and possibly accurate there's no way for a Wikiepdia reader to have any idea of how reliable its contents are. The same problems exist with the other link you added. These are just my opinions - I suggest we take discussion of these to the talk page of the article and see what others think rather than continuing it here.

Please feel free to let me know if I haven't adequately expalined the problem with the material in the article, or if I can help in any other way. Euryalus (talk) 06:09, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Remo Buess

Thanks! :) DisillusionedBitterAndKnackered (talk) 08:49, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXVIII (April 2009)

The April 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 23:00, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Username

Sorry! I did think about changing it to something less depressing or more often styling myself just DBAK. Truth to tell, I was feeling very much all three of those, and particularly with wp, when I set the account up ... oh well. Sorry again! Best wishes :) DisillusionedBitterAndKnackered (talk) 07:17, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, no doubt some vandal-fighting on Remo Buess has put you in a better mood. Welcome back to Wikipedia. Euryalus (talk) 23:00, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Hah! No doubt!! :) Thanks and best wishes, DisillusionedBitterAndKnackered (talk) 06:24, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

advice for deleted article

Am I writing to you in the correct forum? If not, how do I do it? You wrote: Feel free to let me know if I haven't explained the deletion well enough, or if I can help regarding a new version of this (or any other) article. Euryalus (talk) 04:11, 7 May 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikisgoot (talk • contribs)

Hi Euryalus, Thanks a lot for your advice. Sorry for putting up the copyrighted text for Patrick Thompson - Evoke. My questions and notes are below.

- COPYRIGHT: I emailed Patrick Thompson asking if I can use some text and photos for which he is the copyright holder (including the relevant links in the email) in the wikipedia article. He said that I could and I emailed his answer to permissions-en@wikipedia.org and permissions-commons@wikipedia.org (please find the content of the email below).
- ISSUE: Does the email cover what I need? If not please explain what I can do. I'm not sure if I have the correct license information in the email to/from Patrick.
- NOTABILITY: Patrick is an artist of note and reputation in his field (street art/ graffiti) certain in North America and to an extent internationally.
Thank you in advance!

---

Hello,
I am creating a wikipedia page for Patrick Thompson - Evoke. I tried to yesterday but it was deleted (it was my first entry and I neglected to get consent from Patrick Thompson). I hope the consent below is sufficent, if it is not please tell me - as simply as possible :) - what I need from Patrick. Regards!

---

Forwarded Message ----

From: Pt <evocal@gmail.com> To: ymailvan <ymailvan@yahoo.com> Sent: Thursday, May 7, 2009 2:11:49 AM Subject: Re: seeking permission for wikipedia page 1) please do use the information (images and text) from the links you mentioned above.

2) I hereby assert that I am the creator and/or sole owner of the exclusive copyright of WORKS:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/gobmagazine/3454116699/
http://patrickevoke.blogspot.com
www.flickr.com/photos/patrickevoke
http://patthompson.them.ca
I agree to publish that work (both the text and images in the links above) under the free license LICENSE for text: GFDL, v. 1.2 or later and CC-BY-SA version 3.0].
I acknowledge that I grant anyone the right to use the work in a commercial product and to modify it according to their needs, provided that they abide by the terms of the license and any other applicable laws. I am aware that I always retain copyright of my work, and retain the right to be attributed in accordance with the license chosen. Modifications others make to the work will not be attributed to me. I acknowledge that I cannot withdraw this agreement, and that the content may or may not be kept permanently on a Wikimedia project.
May 7th, 2009, Patrick Thompson
yours patrick Thompson

647 878 5239

---

On 7-May-09, at 1:23, ymailvan <ymailvan@yahoo.com> wrote:
Dear Patrick Thompson,
I am writing to confirm whether permission is granted to use text and photos from:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/gobmagazine/3454116699/
http://patrickevoke.blogspot.com
www.flickr.com/photos/patrickevoke
http://patthompson.them.ca

from your website under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GFDL ). A user with the *[IP xxx/ username xxx] has pasted in text from your website [WEBSITE ADDRESS] to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. The text concerns [TOPIC OF PAGE] and the original submission can be viewed at [Address of Pre-copyvio boilerplate version].
This user claims on the talk page [TALK PAGE ADDRESS] to *[have the authority to release this material under the GFDL/ be the original author of the material], but for the page to remain on our site, we need further evidence that this is the case. Please be assured that if you do not grant permission, your content will not be used at Wikipedia; we have a strict policy against copyright violations.
You can read the GNU Free Document License in full athttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Text_of_the_GFDL. (To keep things simple, we do not use Invariant Sections, Front-Cover Texts, or Back-Cover Texts.) The license stipulates that any copy of the material, even if modified, must carry the same license. This means that anyone would be licensed to distribute the material, possibly for a fee (we would distribute your work free of charge). Under the license, no distributor (commercial or otherwise) can restrict future distribution, so your work would never become proprietary. In addition, the license does not grant the right to imply your endorsement of a modified version. Please note that your contributions may not remain intact as submitted; this license and the collaborative nature of our project entitles others to edit, alter, and update content at will, i.e., to keep up with new information, or suit the text to a different purpose. There is more information on our copyright policy at:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Copyrights . The article will be deleted in seven days time if permission is not confirmed, though it can be restored at a later date if you choose to respond later to state that such use is allowed.
Thank you for your time. I look forward to your response.
Yours faithfully,
John
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikisgoot (talk • contribs) 06:37, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi. The email text looks fine to me, though I'm not the final approval person - that approval would come from permissions-en. This can take a few days - if you don't get one by then feel free to re-send it. As I said there's still a potential notability issue but let's deal with one thing at a time. Sorry to put you through all this bureaucracy - there's just an understandable caution about including copyright text or images.

If for some reason the response comes back as no you can always rewrite the text in your own words, though of course that won't work with the images. Let me know what response you get or if I can help in any other way. Euryalus (talk) 08:03, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

GA Sweeps invitation

Hello, I hope you are doing well. I am sending you this message since you are a member of the GA WikiProject. I would like to invite you to consider helping with the GA sweeps process. Sweeps helps to ensure that the oldest GAs still meet the criteria, and improve the quality of GAs overall. Unfortunately, last month only two articles were reviewed. This is definitely a low point after our peak at the beginning of the process when 163 articles were reviewed in September 2007. After nearly two years, the running total has just passed the 50% mark. In order to expediate the reviewing, several changes have been made to the process. A new worklist has been created, detailing which articles are left to review. All exempt and previously reviewed articles have already been removed from the list. Instead of reviewing by topic, you can consider picking and choosing whichever articles interest you.

We are always looking for new members to assist with the remaining articles, so if you are interested or know of anybody that can assist, please visit the GA sweeps page. In addition, for every member that reviews 100 articles or has a significant impact on the process, s/he will get an award when they reach that threshold. If only 14 editors achieve this feat starting now, we would be done with Sweeps! Of course, having more people reviewing less articles would be better for all involved, so please consider asking others to help out. Feel free to stop by and only review a few articles, something's better than nothing! Take a look at the list, and see what articles interest you. Let's work to complete Sweeps so that efforts can be fully focused on the backlog at GAN. If you have any questions about the process, reviewing, or need help with a particular article, please contact me or OhanaUnited and we'll be happy to help. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 08:11, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Geisha

Why should one geisha's name and website be included?

Sayuki is not "just one geisha". She is the first white geisha ever in Japanese history. That means that she has changed 400 years of geisha history, and has broken one of the last bastions of Japanese exlusiveness. That is historic. And akin to being the first black politician, or the first black singer in the NY Opera. That is also historic and no doubt they are mentioned in Wikipedia.

The geisha entry on Wikipedia includes books by geisha, blogs by geisha, and external links to geisha sites. EITHER you should exclude ALL of these, or you should allow mention of Sayuki to stay. —Preceding unsigned comment added by FiG8 (talk • contribs) 09:37, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi, and thanks for your message. There's a couple of problems with the material you would like to include, but the principal one is that you haven't provided a reliable secondary source to support the claim. Sayuki's own website is a primary source and not sufficient - is there a mainstream media outlet that backs up the claim, or perhaps an academic paper? I'm not suggesting the claim is (or isn't ) true, simply that without something to verify it, it shouldn't be included in the article.

If you feel strongly that the material should go in the article as is, I'd ask you to first raise it at Talk:Geisha first so that a consensus can be reached either way. Euryalus (talk) 11:10, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

And you're right about some of the external links. I've removed the blog and the fansite and mildly trimmed the others. If in your view more of the links should be removed in accordance with WP:EL, feel free. Euryalus (talk) 00:25, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

"Sayuki geisha" brings up thousands of media mentions including Japan's wire service Kyodo News, Japan's national television network NHK, BBC, The Independent, The Telegraph in the UK, The Australian, Nikkei Weekly, all the major Japanese papers, all the major Australian papers, CBS in the US, etc.

Academic sources? Sayuki herself IS an academic, with a doctorate from Oxford, is a specialist in Japanese Studies, and is currently lecturing on traditional Japanese culture at one of Japan's most prestigious universities. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.162.191.123 (talk) 10:32, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

If Sayuki has been the subject of thousands of media mentions you should have no difficulty in finding reliable sources to support the text you'd like to include. So far you've been adding it without sources - if you include some of the ones you mention above the problem will be addressed. For the correct format for adding sources, have a look at WP:CITE.

Re Sayuki being an academic - self-published sources are not acceptable, as they are primary rather than secondary. WP:PSTS gives some guidance on the problems with primary sources - they can be used to reference minor points (someone's favourite colour and so on) but not anything significant or controversial. Euryalus (talk) 11:11, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

I notice you've now added the references and dropped the website link. Looks good to me, though there's a discussion at Talk:Geisha as others have raised the notability concern. Feel free to have your say there - I support your new referenced paragraph, and also the even newer abbreviated version proposed. Euryalus (talk) 00:05, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

1. Other geisha on Wikipedia do not use their real names. 2. The Fiona Graham entry has existed for many years, long before Fiona Graham took on the role of Sayuki. It is is strange for that entry to suddenly disappear because Fiona Graham is doing new fieldwork. If academics with other interests than geisha look Fiona Graham up this is strange and confusing. 3. Sayuki is a role, in exactly the same way as any actress takes on a role. The role doesn't become the person. Sayuki's entry should mention what is relevant to Sayuki. 4. The Sayuki entry has incorrect information about training periods for geisha. It is normal in Kyoto for geisha to come in at 15, or 16, or 17 or even 18. The apprenticeship is only five years if they come in at 15. Across the rest of Japan it varies widely. Sayuki did not "skip" the conventional apprenticeship. She followed the normal route for her district in Tokyo for debuting as a geisha. —Preceding unsigned comment added by FiG8 (talk • contribs) 22:15, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

It is potentially damaging to Sayuki to have her academic history overemphasised compared to what she is doing as a geisha. Other geisha do not reveal their names or their precise history. Please have some respect for Japanese tradition, and respect the traditions of geisha. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.162.236.246 (talk) 09:48, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Fiona Graham made her real name known in the media interviews. I appreciate its your point of view that it is damaging to her to have her real name known (despite the fact she revealed it herself), but it remains simply a point of view. That "other geishas" don't reveal their names is irrelevant even if true - Graham freely chose to reveal her name and background, and Wikipedia includes it on the basis that it has relevance to the article and is sourced from reliable publications. You migjht feel she has broken with Japanese tradition to do so, and you might be right. But this is a biography of the individual, including relevant material presented in a neutral tone. Its not a place for advocacy or puff pieces, or a palce to conceal key facts because we don't like them.

Sorry if this sounds a bit blunt, but the conversation on this topic has been going here and various other pages for a while - there is a fairly solid consensus to include details of Graham's name and background, even though she has broken with tradition in revealing it. Euryalus (talk) 12:49, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi

im sorry I know im a pervert —Preceding unsigned comment added by Specialagentmorsell (talk • contribs) 12:40, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Apology accepted. Euryalus (talk) 23:50, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Party-Rock

Trust me what I am doing is good marketing. Get someone to tag them the Kings of Party-Rock and you create an entirely new genre of Music. They could be the foundation of something much bigger. This idea just came to me inspired by there music. Myspace was the only thing. Redirect it to the band, Cool beans, If you were a real fan you would help gather information and references and for god sake help me give this group a little more buzz before the album drops...get rid of band and call them a group. Turn Party-Rock into a genre. I am simply planting seeds and you need support from every fan you can get at this point. Having one fan associated with Party-Rock is better than having no fans. you know? I didn't want more hits from Myspace Page. I wanted start a movement with really good music and people that want to have fun. So make it cool or leave it alone that's my challenge to you.Wowum808 (talk) 13:07, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your message, but Wikipedia articles should not be used for advocacy, nor for original research. we have an article on the band, and it can certainly do with expansion from fans such as yourself. But this is not the place to try to start a movement to turn the band's style into a genre. If the style becomes a genre of its own volition, and that genre is notable, it may deserve an article here. But that needs to happen externally to Wikipedia, and any article on it would need reliable sources to support it. Euryalus (talk) 23:02, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at pennies, you will be blocked from editing.

If you weren't trolling, than discuss before making baseless claims. Also, if you weren't trolling, learn some patience. Don't undo major revisions just because you didn't see what you wanted to right away. And stop making arbitrary undo's. You didn't delete any unsourced references before the article was improved by me, so why now did you? Stop acting jealous.Yahwehisgod (talk) 07:28, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your needlessly hostile message. The "Penny" article is on my watchlist. At one point in reviewing various recent changes I accidentally clicked the rollback button and undid an edit of yours.[3] Within seconds I noticed the mistake and rollback my own edit.[4] You will notice that both edits are time-stamped as occurring within the same minute.

Subsequent to that I removed two unsourced claims in the article, one that pennies "smelt bad" and another that people in America had disdain for pennies and often threw them away. I'm not sure why you take that personally but you shouldn't - the claims are unsourced original research. I have no idea whether they were added by you or someone else, but its not relevant to their removal.

I am mystified by your claim that any of the above is trolling, and doubt I will be blocked from editing for making these changes. However, feel free to report me to WP:AIV or anywhere else you like. Please also remember that no one owns any article, including this one. Edits that improve an article can be done by any editor at any time.

Free to let me know if you disagree, or if the above is unclear. Euryalus (talk) 09:36, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

An addendum - blogs are not reliable sources and should not be used to reference significant points in articles. Euryalus (talk) 09:39, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry ur penny-watching highness who saw fit to leave the penny page in gross condition, I'll try not to offend your penny-watching highness who was content to leave the penny page in gross condition next time.Yahwehisgod (talk) 09:48, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

As I noted on your talk page before you blanked it, the bulk of your edits to the Penny article are improvements. Feel free to keep improving Wikipedia articles, but you may wish to tone down the pointless aggression. Euryalus (talk) 10:28, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Option B

I'll be ignoring it, thanks! DisillusionedBitterAndKnackered (talk) 11:37, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

No worries. Euryalus (talk) 12:10, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Spinal Cord Injuries Australia

Hi, I see you've made quite a few edits on that page. I work in SCIA and have added some stuff ... took away a ref to an annual report that's not on line now. What is your interest in the organisation? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mishahu (talk • contribs) 00:36, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I have a passing interest in the organisation as I used to work with a group that gave grants for spinal research, among other things. I'm certainly no expert in SCIA or spinal injuries so my edits to the article have been more copyediting and a passing read of the annual report.

One thing I think it needs is better referencing - SCIA has got extensive coverage over the years for its products and advocacy but most of these appear not to be online. If you know of any reliable secondary sources for SCIA activities let me know - I'd be happy to help trawl through them to improve the page further. Euryalus (talk) 01:57, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I saw your comment

If you have a problem with me, why dont you look at the Barbados–France relations article, and go to the deletion log. Then look what the user wrote in the crossed out section. Maybe that can make YOU understand that I am a victim (dont you dare ban me, or I WILL report you too) Oxana879 (talk) 12:52, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

This is to notify you that you have been mentioned in a Wikiquette alert. Vicenarian ^{(T · C)} 14:37, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. The issue seems to have been raised and resolved while I was away. Let's hope the editor concernred can get back to productive work soon. Euryalus (talk) 23:14, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XXXIX (May 2009)

The May 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:42, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Belinda Neal, soccer star

Quality, not quantity. --Surturz (talk) 03:59, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Euryalus (talk) 04:55, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Cook and Collingridge

Thanks for your message. No problem and I see you also corrected the Roseberry Topping ref - I am impressed you had Collingridge to hand for the actual page ref! James Cook article needs a lot of work, it would be good to have more editors working on it from time to time. Cheers Dick G (talk) 13:19, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

By chance my local library had it. I'm not a fan of her writing style - I prefer a slightly colder tone than hers - but thats just a personal view. The article is pretty good, but just needas few more referneces and some sections expanded. I also read your essay and share your surprise that the article hasn't been focused on by Australian or New Zealand editors. Euryalus (talk) 21:51, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Lilian Fowler

Hi - just thought I'd say a quick thank you for clearing up my embarrassing mistakes in this article, and adding the extra source. Perhaps I was a bit hasty in writing it, but I was so horrified that a federal electorate's namesake was without an article that I had to remedy it as quickly as I could! So thanks again. Frickeg (talk) 03:09, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Amazing this article didn't exist earlier, and well done for creating it. I think I have a source at home that states that Fowler called herself Lang Labor right up until her defeat (and long after Lang himself had departed parliamentary politics). I also think there was a Lang Labor State MP for Bankstown until the mid-1940's, but would have to check. As a piece of original research, there are certainly still Langites in Bankstown and Auburn who write letters praising him to the local papers. Will check when I have an idle half hour, but good luck with the article, looks good so far.

By the way, who was this Boyd Sinclair man? I'll hunt through the Hansard, see if I can find out. Euryalus (talk) 03:45, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply! Yep, anything you have on Lang Labor would be a big help - Rebecca and I appear to have worked through the worst of it, and I'll be separating out articles on the different Lang parties when I've time. Anything on the period 1944-1950 would be especially helpful - not least what the party was officially called during this time! (And I've no idea who Boyd Sinclair was. The ADB article I used as a source just said that he "had been committed to Morriset criminal asylum in 1936 and held without trial.") Frickeg (talk) 03:47, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Nice work on this article! Yeah, there was no Lang Labor in 1941 (it had just been wrapped up). The NSW parliament is often frustratingly vague about honours received; I was fixing up Ivan Petch the other day and it gave me no information on his Order of Saint Lazarus, which would have been fascinating, I'm sure. I don't think it can hurt to put it in the intro (as in "Elizabeth Lilian Maud Fowler MBE"). The NSW parliament spells her name "Lillian", too, but this must be a mistake; Antony and the ADB both agree on the single "l". Frickeg (talk) 01:05, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, after the 1931 split the official Labor candidates were "Federal Labor" in NSW, while Lang appropriated the ALP banner - but I think it's perfectly legitimate to keep as is, since Australian Labor Party (NSW) is quite adequate and FLP was only used in NSW. In this morning's Sydney Morning Herald, however, we're told (and I can't find this online) that Lang called his 1944-50 party the ALP (Non-Communist) too. I think it's simplest keeping the info on that party at Lang Labor, since it's clear from the timeline that they were overwhelmingly known by that name, far more than in 1931 or 1940. Frickeg (talk) 01:33, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Thornaby On Tees

Are you even from Thornaby, everyone knows about the black stone and you are messing around with information on this great town. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Visitthornaby (talk • contribs) 12:26, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

If everyone knows about it and its such a notable feature, there should be no trouble finding reliable sources to support a sentence on it. However, none have been provided and in their absence the sentence should be removed as unverified.

If you can find some reliable references feel free to re-add the sentence. Euryalus (talk) 12:30, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Olbermann

Thank you! It made it out to the TV Squad [5]. The garbage was only up a little over an hour but that's how fast (false) news can travel. τßōиЄ2001 (ǂ ) 13:35, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

No problem. It's the week for celebrity death hoaxes - removed the same from James Earl Jones a few days ago. Let me know if you come across any more "sudden celebrity deaths."Euryalus (talk) 13:43, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

DELETION REQUESTED

I am citing two examples of inconsistencies made by various Wikipedia “Administrators”.as to why the author of this article now prefers its deletion. Some Administrator’s views claim that they cannot count on Google search for examples to bring forth information to back up information in articles in contrast to other Administrators who are pursuing Google search for information.

Second example is Wikipedia’s choosing to conceal important news worthy events from the public as cited below and on MSNBC’s “Rachel Maddow’s Show”.

In concluding, I request that this article be deleted as to protect who the article was written about from any further manipulative commentary and negative innuendo by Wikipedia Administrators concerning the article’s content. Other articles about people written by this editor will also hopefully be deleted.Borismule (talk) 05:59, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=new+york+time+wikipedia+rachael+maddow+David+Rohde+&btnG=Search&aq=f&oq=&aqi=

http://www.mediabistro.com/Arianna-Huffington-profile.html

http://www.fastcompany.com/blog/kit-eaton/technomix/wikipedia-dabbles-dubious-morals-save-kidnapped-journo

(section deleted for space reasons)

Hi BorisMule, and thanks for your long message and links. After reading it, I removed the cut and paste of the Kit Eamon article for space reasons.

I assume your request for an article to be deleted relates to Ray Dotoratos. If so, it's already been deleted at your request by User:RobertG. -- Euryalus (talk) 07:00, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

WHAT EXACTLY IS WIKIPEDIA'S STANDARD FOR FACT FINDING? A footnote to the above. Is Wikipedia legitimate for fact finding? Many of Wikipedia administrators, authors, editors use internet "Usernames", not real names to contribute to this encyclopedia. Where is the authenticity to verify contibutor's information listed on the website?. How can readers rely on this form of fact finding for "The Project" if its content is based on articles that cannot be backed up by administrators, authors, editors using real names. Why should administrators, authors and editors at Wikipedia be allowed to use a different standard for idendification as reliable sources to verify its articles that is different from the main stream media?Borismule (talk) 15:27, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

There's quite a detailed article on this at Reliability of Wikipedia, if you're interested. To put it simply however, readers cannot have faith in information in Wikipedia if that information is not verifiable from published reliable sources. The username of the person adding it is irrelevant - its the quality of the sources and the fact that every major point should be substantiated, that makes the difference. The problem with your Dotoratos article was it asserted notability but did not provide reliable sources to verify that assertion. This was despite repeated efforts by a number of editors, and (with all respect) repeated invitations to you as article creator to provide the sources upon which you based the article content.

The comparison to mainstream media sourcing isn't really applicable - Wikipedia doesn't make the news and Wikipedia itself is not an appropriate source for material in Wikipedia (ie sourcing a claim in a Wikipedia article solely on the basis that the information appears in another Wikipedia article, is not sufficient to pass WP:RS). Euryalus (talk) 22:26, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Proposed mergers

Hi! Concerning this revert at Wikipedia:Proposed mergers: The section in question was just added by me earlier today, to propose a slightly modified procedure for proposing a merger. After I added it, however, I decided that it's better to copy it to a subpage first and ask for comments on the talk page. I think it's too early to make such a significant(?) change to the procedure before people have had time to say what they think about it. For this reason, I hope you're not against me reverting your edit and moving the section back to the subpage. (The subpage is here and the discussion on the talk page if you're interested.) Jafeluv (talk) 20:24, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Not at all - my fault for not checking the talk page first. And your proposed wording looks fine to me. Euryalus (talk) 21:58, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Archaic d00d

Hi Euryalus. When considering unblocking the above user, the note left by Florrie at User talk:Mattinbgn#Archaic d00d may be relevant. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 07:52, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Noted, thanks. There's certainly enough here for an SPI check, though Ehuangzhang made their last eidt after Archaic d00d was blocked so a checkuser may not show anything. I'm happy to continue the discussion in good faith and see where it leads, but an unblock is still a long way off given there's still no acknowledgement of the disruption caused by personal attacks, and there's a fair history of them unalleviated by many good edits. I also wouldn't contemplate an unblock without discussing with you first as blocking admin. Euryalus (talk) 12:02, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

You may be right on checkuser but where there is smoke... With regards to unblocking: if you are satisfied that an unblock is warranted after full consideration of the facts, I am comfortable with that. Cheers, Mattinbgn\^talk 12:14, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Nothing immediately on the horizon yet. Euryalus (talk) 12:23, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

In the interests of full disclosure I should provide the exculpatory evidence gathered at User:YellowMonkey#CheckUser request. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 07:20, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. The editor in question has made clear he doesn't believe comments were disruptive, so to unblock him would risk a repeat of them. On that basis I've let him know I won't be unblocking, and we'll how it goes when the two weeks expire. Euryalus (talk) 07:50, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XL (June 2009)

The June 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:05, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Buckenbowra River

Hi Euryalus. I noticed this move. My understanding is that while localities (cities, towns, villages, suburbs etc.) must be disambiguated, I am pretty sure the same does not apply for other geographic features. Cheers, Mattinbgn\^talk 23:58, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

No? Sorry, my mistake - been a while since I worked on an Australian geographic article. Will move it back. Euryalus (talk) 00:56, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

More Than Weird

Hi! I wrote a page about a young adult novel called more than weird. Here's the link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/More_than_weird. Could you edit it or clean it up or wikifying it? Thanks! Neptunekh2 (talk) 14:29, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

NATURE

I'm getting really fucking sick and tired of you assholes deleting my stuff! First my Indy 5, now my Nature!

KNOCK THAT SHIT OFF!!!

Your edits are original research, at best. Material in Wikipedia must be verified from reliable sources. -- Euryalus (talk) 22:39, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

November 13, 2012 Eclipse

Hello. Thank you for your help. You're right that the deleted article wasn't much to go on, but I recreated the article using another eclipse article as a guide. At least it has some basic information about the eclipse now. Thank you again. Edjon (talk) 02:46, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

No problems. Euryalus (talk) 02:59, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Advice requested from an admin experienced at AIV

Dear Euryalus,

I have noticed that User:203.9.58.67 has both significant history of unhelpful editing, especially with regards to the Minarets page. The IP was blocked for 24 hours on 24 July 2009, and has just made his or her first edit since the block back on the Minarets page, inserting what seems to be more a complaint about the noise they make. As this seems more like NPOV I am hesitant as to whether or not I should report them to AIV. Any advice?

Regards, -- Alexandr Dmitri (Александр Дмитрий) (talk) 11:44, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your message. The reinsertion of this IP's personal opinion is vandalism, as they've been both warned and blocked for it before. However it's been reverted, was several hours ago and is not so offensive as to require immediate action. I'd leave it alone and report it if it resumes. As its obviously the same user as a week ago, a longer block can then be pretty quickly applied. If it does resume, you can report at AIV or just let me know directly. Euryalus (talk) 12:00, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the swift reply and advice which I will follow. Effectively, the IP is not a prolific vandal and no urgency is required. Should the IP reinsert I shall report for repeated insertion of NPOV. -- Alexandr Dmitri (Александр Дмитрий) (talk) 12:15, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Yep. The fact that the same vandalism has been performed before means any subsequent block for it will be both more quickly applied and most likely for longer as the IP would appear to be at least temporarily static.

More please?

Euryalus: I guess I'm wondering why your talk page is filled with humdrum admin stuff when you could be spending the time churning out lovely articles such as your current nomination at FAC. Are you / were you a professional historian? Tony (talk) 05:11, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm flattered but alas no, I'm a dull civil servant. This is the first full article I've worked on, and its been a lot of fun. Glad you liked it - its an interesting and well-documented topic which certainly helps. Euryalus (talk) 05:57, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Alt text

Thanks for your help with alt texts for HMS Endeavour at its FAC. Just FYI, since your comments I've replaced two of the images in the article - the lead image in the infobox and the one associated with the shipwreck. I think I've got the new alt texts right but thought I'd let you know as the replacements and their alt text descriptions were added since your review. Euryalus (talk) 23:56, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't know which two images you added, but overall the alt text looks very fine. Thanks for keeping it up to date. A tiny style point: it's often better to reword the alt text to avoid "is" and "are". E.g., "Green hills flank the seaport" rather than "The seaport is flanked by green hills", and "rows away from" instead of "is rowing away from". Eubulides (talk) 00:03, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Done, and thanks for the tip. Euryalus (talk) 00:30, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Endeavour replica photo

Dear Euyalus:

Thank you so much for notifying me about the photo and the permission needed for it. I am thrilled that you like it. I think I have rectified all that now (I originally uploaded it years ago when I didn't know how to put the proper permissions in). I have also replaced the image with one of slightly higher resolution (unfortunately, I think I wiped the original photo - so this is the highest resolution I can get), and have inserted it into the article.

Now, I must congratulate you (in spite of our little tussle over the correct name for the ship) for all the fine work you have done on this article - it has been really outstanding and is much appreciated. Keep up the good work! Cheers, John Hill (talk) 02:21, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

It's a great photo, and looks good in the article. Hope you don't mind - I moved it to the replica section as I think it better represents the replica than the brass plaque. If you think it would look better in the shipwreck part feel free to move it back and restore the plaque photo.

The problem as it turns out wasn't with your permissions, it was with the transfer to Commons which meant your original permission was deleted here. Thanks for updating it, and we'll see if the article passes FAC.

And in hindsight I don't really care what the article title is :) Euryalus (talk) 03:48, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Cooktowners, HM Bark Endeavour, and Lieutenant James Cook

Thanks a lot for all the work - I am really happy to see the photo on the page where it is. I, also, in hindsight don't really care what name is used for the article - both names are there and properly cross-referenced with redirects - so there should be no problem - except maybe from some Cooktown residents who tend to feel quite strongly about it. An even worse sin here is to refer to James Cook, when he was here on his first voyage, as "Captain Cook". You can say "the captain of the Endeavour, James Cook" - but NEVER use "captain" as his title here or you will be written off as an ignoramus. I am just warning you in case you ever visit Cooktown. Otherwise the locals tend to be quite friendly - so don't be put off - I'd love to meet you and show you around our beautiful slice of paradise! Cheers, John Hill (talk) 04:51, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Plaque image

I replaced that with a nice photo I saw of the replica in Commons, and which seemed to have a good license. I subsequently noticed the source is unstated and therefore may me a unsuitable, so I reverted myself. Sorry to muddy the waters. –Moondyne 02:38, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Heh, no problems. Its come a way since it was an ACOTF and had hardly any sources and an entirely unreferenced section on scurvy, far less images with suitable licences. Euryalus (talk) 03:53, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks - it's great to know someone's noticing! (Some of these bios are in truly dreadful shape, even with the succession boxes, I'm discovering. My to-do list grows!) The barnstar really helps keep the motivation going - thanks again! Frickeg (talk) 05:16, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

The fishing is still good in Cooktown

Hi! Thanks for your friendly note. Yes, in spite of the invasive species, overfishing, etc., it is still quite good here now. I don't fish anymore but my son is an avid fisherman and would be pleased, I am sure, to meet you and show you a bit about the local fishing scene. But do come soon, I am not sure how long it will last - there are certainly far less fish around than when we moved up here in the 80s. The wharf in town is a favorite place. Anyway, do let me know if you are coming up - I would love to meet you. You can always contact me at: wynhill2@bigpond.net.au. Cheers and best wishes, John Hill (talk) 23:04, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Banksia prionotes

G'day,

I wonder if you might be interested in looking over Banksia prionotes before we take it to FAC. I'm asking because I see you as an excellent copyeditor with little to no knowledge of botany. No obligation, please; I don't want you to do it if you find this kind of thing tedious, or if you're too busy with HMS.

Hesperian 05:54, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Happy to. HMS seems to have entered a brief doldrums (a couple of days without either an edit or a comment at the FAC) so I'm having mild withdrawals and need something else to read. And I certainly know absolutely nothing about botany, so if that's a key criteria I'll do OK. Will have a look over the weekend and get back to you. Euryalus (talk) 11:50, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLI (July 2009)

The July 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 19:29, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Tryall

As a WP:SHIPS person, do you have anything useful to contribute to User talk:Hesperian#Tryall (East Indiaman)? Hesperian 00:07, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Nominations open for the Military history WikiProject coordinator election

The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process has started; to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 (UTC) on 12 September!
Many thanks,  Roger Davies ^talk 04:24, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

wiki page about me

Hi

Someone started a wiki page about me. But it looks like you deleted it. Signing the Agile Manifesto was not quite right. A little research would have reveal that I was one of the original 17 authors of the manifesto. I've also made other contributions, such as planning poker and a unit test harness for embedded software development.

there are wikipedia links from planning poker and the manifesto. it would be good if they were not dead.

how would I go about getting this accurate?

thanks, James jwgrenning (talk) 15:19, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your message, but I'm not sure what article you're talking about. What was the name of the deleted article? Euryalus (talk) 13:04, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Found it. It was deleted last December after an expired WP:PROD. The content was "James Grenning was one of seventeen to sign the Agile Manifesto", plus a couple of external links. The problems with this article are that it lacks context, it fails to assert notability and it had no references showing non-trivial coverage in reliable, secondary sources. Feel free to create a new version of the page, but if you don't want to see it deleted a third time it will need the above issues addressed. Euryalus (talk) 13:08, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLII (August 2009)

The August 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 19:46, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Military history coordinator elections: voting has started!

Voting in the Military history WikiProject coordinator election has now started. The aim is to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months from a pool of sixteen candidates. Please vote here by 23:59 (UTC) on 26 September!
For the coordinators,  Roger Davies ^talk 22:09, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Nice message!

Just wanted to let you know that I appreciated your nice message on User talk:Nathaliemaria. I'm quite tired of seeing always the same impersonal templates on newbie's talk pages. — Sebastian 08:21, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! I find a personal message means a new editor is much more likely to "fix" their article rather than abandon it. In this case that appears not to have worked, but hope springs eternal :) Euryalus (talk) 11:41, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLIII (September 2009)

The September 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 23:47, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Permission for recently deleted wiki page

You deleted my upload to Dansearts just now, I am the webmaster, technical director, and boyfriend of the owner of dansearts. I am uploading the information with my own permission. I may be emailed at Callahan@dansearts.com if you wish to confirm. I am also the founder and former president, and current webmaster of Lynchburg College Men's Club Soccer and I will be uploading that inoformation soon. I can be emailed at callahan@lcclubsoccer.com if that needs to be confirmed as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wildcardajc (talk • contribs) 01:20, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

No problems. If you are the copyright holder of material on another website and you want to use that material in Wikipedia, there's a couple of steps that need to be followed. These can be found here.

Essentially, you can either:

• post a message on the other website using the words in the link above, or
• contact permissions-en@wikimedia.org, add the OTRS pending template to the article discussion page, and wait for someone to contact you.

Or you can entirely rewrite the material to avoid it appearing as a copyright problem, though this seems a lot of work if you're the person who wrote the current version in the first place.

Let me know if I can help further with any of these options. Unfortunately, absent any of them, the article will keep popping up as a copyright problem and will keep getting deleted. As you're the webmaster for the external site, I'd suggest the quickest and easiest option would be to post the permission notice there, but of course that's up to you. Euryalus (talk) 02:08, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Re: to recent deletion

They blocked my upload for Dansearts and Lynchburg College Men's Club Soccer although I have sent emails from respective organizations email account stating wikipedia has permission to upload the information in accordance to permissions-en@wikimedia.org. If you need to confirm my info I can breifly state something on both sites but it cannot stay on the websites. --Wildcardajc (talk) 02:19, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

A suggestion. Add something to the external pages using the exact words from the link I posted above. I notice you added a link to the Wikipedia page on Dansearts already - just put the explicit copyright permission sentence there as well. Once this is done I'll unlock the page so you can recreate the article.

You only need to keep the wording on the external website long enough for an OTRS volunteer to respond to your email, which should be a couple of days.

On a semi-related point, while the above should be sufficient to avoid the copyright issue you might need to do more work to ensure the article meets the notability guideline. But one problem at a time :) Euryalus (talk) 02:47, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

waiting for original blocker may take a while

re: [6] Kukini has not edited Wikipedia since early July. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:57, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

User:Dahat1992

Feel free to unblock her/him. When I look back at the reasons I blocked 3 years ago, they still seem quite justified. If this person is ready to not be disruptive 3 years later, so be it. Let her/him try again. --Kukini ^{háblame aquí} 05:02, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, I guess that shows me. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:08, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Test your World War I knowledge with the Henry Allingham International Contest!

As a member of the Military history WikiProject or World War I task force, you may be interested in competing in the Henry Allingham International Contest! The contest aims to improve article quality and member participation within the World War I task force. It will also be a step in preparing for Operation Great War Centennial, the project's commemorative effort for the World War I centenary.

If you would like to participate, please sign up by 11 November 2009, 00:00, when the first round is scheduled to begin! You can sign up here, read up on the rules here, and discuss the contest here!
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 18:45, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLIV (October 2009)

The October 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 18:45, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Header preferences

Hi Euryalus, thanks for the comment. I've given up minding the mutilation of layout that follows the articles I create - I just mind if it's done by one of the arch morons Jeni, Hesperian or Rkitko. Go well Rotational (talk) 11:02, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Invitation to participate in SecurePoll feedback and workshop

As you participated in the recent Audit Subcommittee election, or in one of two requests for comment that relate to the use of SecurePoll for elections on this project, you are invited to participate in the SecurePoll feedback and workshop. Your comments, suggestions and observations are welcome.

For the Arbitration Committee,
Risker (talk) 08:08, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Re: Peace dove

I would have hoped so, however the recipient disagrees and apparently wishes to hold onto a grudge of some sort [7]. :( I fear the (incorrect) unblock has had a negative impact, and reinforced the user's impression that it is perfectly alright to willfully violate WP:BLP. Cirt (talk) 11:08, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

User:82.69.113.156

82.69.113.156 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) is adding personal attacks against User:Philip Trueman to his own talk page. I tried reporting this to AIV but AIV Helperbot reverted me. Can you change the settings? Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 12:36, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Never mind, since I'm about to log off and it looks like you may have done so already, I'll just send a malformed request to AIV or post it on AN/I. Thanks anyway. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 12:55, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry I missed your emssage - I had already logged off. I've also gone back and deleted the personal attacks from the page history. Euryalus (talk) 01:26, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

No problem, I just put it on AIV without using the {{IPvandal}} template. AIV Helperbot isn't that clever. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 01:51, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

NEWT MfD

No, I agree with you. It would be pointless now, since it seems to have run its course and apparently will become inactive. Best wishes! <>Multi‑Xfer<> (talk) 07:28, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism revert

Thank you for the revert on my talk page - Skysmith (talk) 11:27, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

The Wager (2007 film)

Hey! Could you please paste whatever content was in The Wager (2007 film) before you deleted it to User:American Eagle/The Wager (2007 film)? I'm interested in recreating the article, with better sourcing, of course. ;) Thanks, American Eagle (talk) 07:10, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Done. Good luck with the improvements. Euryalus (talk) 11:24, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Heh... wasn't much there. ;) Thanks for doing it! American Eagle (talk) 18:05, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

'Port Qasim' article

Hi Euryalus, this refers to the issues you identified for Port Qasim article. Although it took much longer, I have added the references for the capacity of the navigation channel (Deadweight Tonnage and Tidal Variation) and the proposed expansion projects. Whenever convenient for you, please check the article and review the class if appropriate. Enjoy your holidays. ISQureshi (talk) 11:47, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi, just wondering if you have reviewed the article. Waiting for your response. Thanks! ISQureshi (talk) 19:41, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Yo ho ho

File:Father Winter Solstice.jpg

ϢereSpielChequers is wishing you Seasons Greetings! Whether you celebrate your hemisphere's Solstice or Xmas, Eid, Diwali, Hogmanay, Hannukah, 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/Dec09}} to your friends' talk pages.

and a belated but heartfelt thanks for coming to my defence recently ϢereSpielChequers 20:30, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

P —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.12.34.93 (talk) 20:24, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XIV (November 2009)

The November 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 08:54, 21 December 2009 (UTC)