Archives Neg: 2007 Khoyor: 2008 Gurav: 2009 Duruv: 2010 Tav: 2011 Zurgaa: 2012 Doloo: 2013 Naim: 2014 Yus: 2015 Avan: 2016

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

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

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

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

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

On 4 January 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article HMS Stork (1756), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the 10-gun sloop-of-war HMS Stork was originally designed to resemble King George II's yacht Royal Caroline? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/HMS Stork (1756). You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, HMS Stork (1756)), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

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

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

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

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

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

Hi there

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

@GamerPro64: Feel free to ask any questions here. -- Euryalus (talk) 21:51, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Administrator changes

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

Briangotts • JeremyA • BU Rob13

Guideline and policy news

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

Technical news

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

Arbitration

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

Obituaries

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

13:36, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Since there appears to be a common - somewhat offhanded-manner - tendency not to follow my complaints, I will again make my point here: you will see no more contributions from my side exactly because User:Alexbrn and the others have successfully purged any trace of the edits that I made to Big Pharma, Big Pharma (disambiguation) (deleted) and Big Pharma conspiracy theory. There is not a trace left. Not on the pages, nor on the talk pages (where I had given the reasons with references for my edits shortly after Alexbrn left me his first blunt message on my talk page. He calls himself a "dragon" who will boldly edit anything on his user page. I grant him that he does not bear this signature for nothing. I repeat here: My edits were irretrievably deleted, all that remains are traces of my page moves. This is what I call silencing. And I cannot but feel sneered at when he says that I have no right to WP:OWNERSHIP which is exactly the right that he has exercised for the good of his own article. Far from expecting (or believing) that my own contributions are treated as sacred I have a good mind to officially doubt the neutrality of WP here, especially since the topic we have been touching on appears to be one of particular subtlety. Please take a few minutes to ponder that. -- Kku (talk) 11:03, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again. I have made a new proposal at the talk page and I would appreciate it if you could now offer your opinion. Thank you. Linguist^talk|contribs 18:26, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

@JarrahTree: Agreed. According to edit stats I've made 3,200 deletions over time, so am clearly not a rabid inclusionist. But am routinely mystified at the enthusiasm for speedy-tagging articles with notability claims. Due allowance for mistakes, but repeated misuse of speedy deletion tags is disruptive editing. Too late to warn in this case, but you're right that it deserved more than just an edit summary decline.-- Euryalus (talk) 04:00, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Can you semi-protect to persistent long-term abuse IPs (Hanoi Vandal). 123.136.106.207 (talk) 10:51, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

@AprilHare: Hi, and thanks for the message. The problem with the article is that there is no indication the church is notable. To be eligible for an encyclopedia entry, the church would need to have been the subject of significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. There's more detail on how this is applied at this policy page. As deleted, the article included an infobox showing the church's location, and only the following text: "St Peter the Apostle Serbian Orthodox Church is a church at 3502 N First St in Fresno, California." I'm absolutely certain that's all true, but alas it's not enough for a Wikipedia page.

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

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

Hi there Euryalus, I'm unsure why you reverted this edit of the NSW Department of Planning and Environment. I have today made further edits to the page including additional references. It would help if/when you made reverts if you would please add comments as to the reason for the revision that help other editors to understand your reasoning. Many thanks and happy editing. Rangasyd (talk) 03:52, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited HMS Liverpool (1758), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Brest (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:34, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

In this speedy decline, you say "Unfortunately speedy declined as has previously been nominated and tag removed. Please feel free to send to Prod or afd." It appears that the sole basis for declining the deletion was that it had been previously nominated. I'm not familiar with any limitations on speedy deletions being a one-shot process (unlike WP:PROD which is a one-shot process). Can you point me to that guideline? Toddst1 (talk) 19:15, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hi Euryalus,

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

There is nothing in the article to suggest this is an accredited educational institution, and nothing to suggest it meets the general notability criteria. Am happy to provide you a copy for your userspace if you want to keep working on it, but recommend that you ultimately resubmit it via the Draft process, so that it can be reviewed for notability before returning to the main encyclopaedia. -- Euryalus (talk) 11:51, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited HMS Actaeon (1757), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Brest (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:54, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Can't discuss this online. Steven Crossin 10:21, 19 April 2017 (UTC) Done. -- Euryalus (talk) 10:22, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Precious

Three years!

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

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:11, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

I'm first contacting you about it because you have made the block for Yanelazulu_.s. I have noticed an evading unblocked incarnation, Yanela_zulu_i also disruptively editing WP:DUDE. Thank you, — PaleoNeonate — 08:11, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

@EthiopianHabesha: thanks for the message. The restriction is what's called a community ban, that is, it was imposed by community consensus rather than simply by an administrator. If you'd like to appeal it can you please post your appeal at WP:AN so it can be reviewed by the community as a whole. I can also transfer across what you've posted here, if you wish.

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

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