User talk:Euryalus/Archive7

The Bugle: Issue LXXXII, January 2013
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 13:13, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Agile Manifesto
"Anyone" cannot sign the Agile Manifesto.

There are 17 original signatories. James Grenning is one of them. I am another.

I suggest you reinstate the page.

-- stephenmellor@stephenmellor.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.150.224.160 (talk) 22:59, 28 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi. Not sure what you mean. Details of the Manifesto are at Agile software development, including the fact there were 17 original signatories and a list of their names as a footnote. Euryalus (talk) 06:09, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXXIII, February 2013
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 07:29, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXXIV, March 2013
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 03:59, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Naval History
Aye there, 'Euryalus', I'm a member of WikiProject Ships. To help naval historians here at Wikipedia in the effort of writing and citing naval history articles sometime ago I created the List of ships captured in the 19th century and Bibliography of early American naval history pages. Over the last year(+) I have been tracking down and including names of captured ships and naval history texts for inclusion in either of these articles. I like to think that I have included most captured ships (19th century) and most naval history texts (covering the 1700s-1800s) for inclusion in these articles, so if you know of any captured ships or naval history texts that are not included would you kindly include them, either on the page or the talk page of the appropriate article? Any help would be a big help and feedback is always welcomed. Thanx! -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:44, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXXV, April 2013
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 15:23, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXXVI, May 2013
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 13:17, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

WikiProject Good Articles Recruitment Centre
{||}

The Bugle: Issue LXXXVII, June 2013
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 08:54, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXXVIII, July 2013
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 15:29, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

DYK RfC

 * As a listed GA participant, you are invited to contribute to a formal Request for Comment on the question of whether Good Articles should be eligible to appear in the Did You Know? slot in future. Please see the proposal on its subpage here, or on the main DYK talk page. To add the discussion to your watchlist, click this link. Thank you in advance. Gilderien Chat&#124;Contributions 02:56, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

What Happend?
Hey You Deleted My Cousin's Sky Does Minecraft Page.Why? — Preceding unsigned comment added by CrusoeTheWaterHorse (talk • contribs) 08:18, 17 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi. The entire page text was: "Skydoesminecraft is a Youtuber that plays the famous sandboxing block game Minecraft."


 * This fails Wikipedia's notability criteria which require that a person is considered notable if they are the subject of multiple, reliable secondary sources. Your cousin's article offered no claim for notability and no sources. It is not enough that Minecraft is notable, your article would need to explain how your cousin is notable and give some reliable sources supporting that claim.


 * The page has also been salted for a little while because you or others are repeatedly recreating it each time it is deleted (as it has been several times by several different admins). If you really think your cousin is notable enough for an encyclopedia entry I suggest you make a version of the page in a sandbox attached to your userpage, then get some opinions on whether it meets the notability criteria. That way you can make sure it is in a form that is likely to survive as an encyclopedia entry and not continue to be removed.


 * Hope this is helpful advice. Let me know if not, or if I can help in any way. Euryalus (talk) 13:22, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXXIX, August 2013
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 00:05, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

WikiProject Military history coordinator election
Greetings from WikiProject Military history! As a member of the project, you are invited to take part in our annual project coordinator election, which will determine our coordinators for the next twelve months. If you wish to cast a vote, please do so on the election page by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September! Kirill [talk] 16:58, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

September 24 Categories for Discussion
You closed one where the nominatior withdrew their nomination but there are several more the nominator did the same. Here, here, here, and here. If you could please take of those also....William 15:17, 29 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Done. Euryalus (talk) 23:48, 29 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Expanded views:


 * There's an issue with these closures and their intersection with WP:WITHDRAWN which states: "The nominator may withdraw the nomination at any time. However, if subsequent editors have added substantive comments in good faith, the discussion should not be speedily closed. A nomination should not be withdrawn in order to try to short-circuit an ongoing discussion." Closures at Modesto, New York City, Detroit and Beverly Hills were reasonably straightforward as there was limited discussion and no unstruck !votes prior to the nominator withdrawing. Closures at Scottsdale, Bakersfield and Mesa were more complex:
 * In each case subsequent editors had added substantive comments, so arguably the discussion should not have been speedily closed.
 * However, the speedy closure was to facilitate further discussion over a wider issue, rather than short circuit it. There was strength behind the argument put by User:BrownHairedGirl that a rash of very similar CfD's would be better addressed by a consensus decision on the concept behind them, rather than an endless series of individual nominations. I note that editor's commitment to create an RfC on the topic so the broader issue can be resolved.
 * I also note that in each case where there were substantive comments before the CfD was withdrawn, the discussion was broadly heading towards either "no consensus" or "keep," rather than "upmerge." These outcomes would have retained the categories. This is in effect the outcome we presently have a consequence of early withdrawal of the nomination.
 * In fairness I have also noted in each of the closures that the nomination is withdrawn pending RfC. This indicates my view the closure of these CfD's should not prejudice future nominations, should the RfC support that outcome or should no RfC proceed within a reasonable time. This has also been noted on the templates attached to each category giving the results of the nomination.
 * In summary - the closures of three of these CfD's conflicts with sentence two of WP:WITHDRAWN. But to leave these three CfD's open while closing the others would effectively conflict with sentence three of the same policy, and with WP:BURO. As logically this issue will only be resolved through community discussion, I erred on the side of sentence three and closed the CfD's. But am happy to discuss as always. Euryalus (talk) 00:40, 30 September 2013 (UTC)


 * For what it is worth, outside of sportspeople, I do not see how the Scottsdale nomination could have really been viewed as anything other than upmerge. That was definitely the trend it was heading towards.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:56, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Sure, that's a reasonable qualifier for the third dot point above. But the overall outcome stands - withdrawn without prejudice, pending an RfC into the wider issue. Euryalus (talk) 01:12, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

October 2013
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=575241447 your edit] to Adventure Bay, Tasmania may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 ""s. If you have, don't worry: just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20-%20&section=new my operator's talk page].
 * List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 04:07, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
 * ' in 1777, and by William Bligh aboard HMS Bounty in 1788 and HMS Providence (1791)  in 1792. Others to visit the bay included Bruni d'Entrecasteaux aboard ''[[French ship
 * Bruni d'Entrecasteaux aboard Recherché in 1792 and 1792 and Nicolas Baudin on the corvette Géographe  in 1802. [[

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=577206598 your edit] to Prince of Wales (ship) may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20-%20&section=new my operator's talk page].
 * List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 00:04, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Lord Howe Island rendezvous. They were also reluctant to hazard the voyage to Batavia through the [Great Barrier Reef], without Alexander in the lead. Instead they agreed to turn their ships

Relist suggestion
I would suggest that this AfD you closed be relisted. I'm still considering the matter, and only one other editor has reacted to the AfD request.--Epeefleche (talk) 13:54, 5 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the message. I closed this as "redirect" because there was strength in the arguments put by both User:Bearcat and User:Stalwart111 that the article fails WP:POLITICIAN in that its subject:
 * Does not hold/has not held international, national or statewide office;
 * Has not (yet) been the subject of in depth, independent coverage in multiple news feature articles, sufficient to become "part of the enduring historical record" in his profession; and
 * Is not, as a candidate for office rather than an office-holder, inherently notable for this activity alone.
 * As the result was "Redirect" rather than "delete," the contents of the article remain available if/when Kallos wins the election next month and can be reassessed against WP:POLITICIAN.
 * I note the article has been open at AfD for 11 days and was flagged 9 days ago at the two most closely-related Wikiprojects, both of which have substantial memberships. This seemed a reasonable period within which editors might offer additional opinions or otherwise amend the article to make additional claims for notability. I agree with your comment that even if Kallos is presently non-notable as a candidate for office, he might be notable for other reasons and therefore eligible for an article. But having reviewed the discussion and the article refs, there was validity in Stalwart111's view that there was not enough here for this article to otherwise pass the general notability guideline. And lastly, though WP:RELIST provides the options for relisting articles if there is insufficient discussion, in my experience it is most usefully applied where there has no policy discussion. This is not the case here. WP:NOQUORUM also provides options in cases where there has been limited participation.


 * The short version: I don't particularly agree with you. But (and it's a fair "but") for all the arguments above, it does no harm to get some additional eyes. So - ✅. Relisted as requested, and good luck with your consideration of the article. :) Euryalus (talk) 15:30, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Many thanks. I appreciate your flexibility.  As noted -- I haven't even !voted as of yet, as I am mulling it over.  But I don't see it as a slam dunk at all.  Much of the rationale was creaky, and only one editor (other than me) reacted to the AfD suggestion, and it seems appropriate under the circumstances to obtain other views.  And, though the merits are secondary issues, wp:politician does not trump GNG, and furthermore the suggestion that precedent is compelling is belied by the fact that we don't rely on precedent (as distinct from courts of law), and that in any event the AfD pointed to here was all over the place, and certainly not one of overwhelming consensus.  Bottom line: I appreciate your relisting it.  Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 16:37, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Any time. I reckon the close was correct but further discussion is always worthwhile. Euryalus (talk) 00:47, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Happily, further discussion led to a different result that reflected additional input. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 17:52, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

The House on the Lake
Why? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marknewton1 (talk • contribs) 22:11, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi. On the basis of the arguments put at Articles for deletion/The house on the lake, relating to notability. But if you'd like to have this close reviewed, please feel free to list it at Deletion Review and get another opinion. - Euryalus (talk) 00:44, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

,

Disambiguation link notification for October 10
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Prince of Wales (ship), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Batavia (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) 10:50, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

DYK for HMS Flamborough (1707)
Gatoclass (talk) 00:07, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

That record company
I understand the note on the creating editor's page, however the circumstances in which it was created render it to be promotional of his business activities. Fiddle  Faddle  10:46, 13 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Very likely, yes. I suppose it is possible that there might be a viable non-promotional article on this company one day, provided there were proper sources. It is very unlikely it could be written by User:Pewny given the COI and the self-confessed promotional activity since that account was created. But on the chance that this is a potential genuine editor, now looking for a way to move to more productive areas while tinkering idly in a sandbox on a pet article they could one day send off for review by others and eventual posting by someone less conflicted ... Euryalus (talk) 11:01, 13 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I also suppose it could be, but on a day without the letter Y in it, and in a month with fewer than 28 days. But it 'amuses' me that his first act after being unblocked was to create, yet again, an article on his own business. Fiddle   Faddle  11:06, 13 October 2013 (UTC)


 * As someone once said, AGF is not a suicide pact. :) Euryalus (talk) 11:08, 13 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Love it! I assumed it and even supported an unblock! I have a belief that, up to a certain point, anything can be redeemed. In the words of a US President, "Fool me once, and I have forgotten the rest, so I'll bluster for a bit!". Looking at the German Wikipedia, the same pattern of self promotion exists there. Of course their rules may be different. And I don't do German in any more than cursory detail. I can order a bar in a beer because I have trouble with their word order. Fiddle   Faddle  11:14, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Well that's that then. Euryalus (talk) 12:00, 13 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I am waiting for the first sock to fall. That would be the second shoe dropping. Fiddle   Faddle  12:15, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

User talk:Euryalus
Hello, I've corrected the article Maxim Slipchenko and would like to add it again. Can this be done?Fightmaximus (talk) 06:48, 16 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi, and sure it can! Provided of course your new version overcomes the notability issue that led to the deletion of the previous one. The deleted article failed Wikipedia's general notability guideline, and also claimed titles for Slipchenko that it was not apparent he actually held. If you've got a new version which addresses these problems then you're welcome to present the case for its reinclusion in the encyclopedia.


 * Could I make a suggestion though - given the article has already been deleted (twice), it would be best to present your revised version as an article for creation rather than simply creating it as a standalone encyclopedia article. That way it can be reviewed by an independent third party before it reappears in the encyclopedia, and is much more likely to survive its restoration and not be re-deleted. And if there's anything that needs adding to the article before its ready for mainspace, the "article for creation" process will help make that clear.


 * Hope this helps. I can also flick you a copy of the most recently deleted article in case there's anything in it that might be useful for the new one. But please don't simply resubmit this deleted version - it will certainly get deleted a third time if you do. Euryalus (talk) 11:45, 16 October 2013 (UTC)


 * -sigh- I notice that you simply recreated the article without addressing the notability issue or even significantly amending the text. I have deleted it again, as it is a recreation of an article deleted via a deletion discussion - see Articles for deletion/Maxim Slipchenko. Please don't recreate this article again without addressing the notability issue and providing actual references to support your claim. General links to muaythai club homepages are not sufficient, you need sources that reference specific claims that Maxim Slipchenko is notable enough for an article. Euryalus (talk) 11:08, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Regarding the closed discussion
Sir, the discussion was not yet over. Let it remain open for at lease 24 hours so that other admins can express there views. And i don't think that there is any norm on Wikipedia which says that i can't put up a matter for discussion, if i was not the victim. Please, this is a serious concern. You should open the discussion once again. I'll appreciate that move. Please do so. 122.163.226.164 (talk) 11:26, 16 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi, and thanks for the talkpage message.


 * It seems like you are not objecting to any specific incident, but making a general comment about another user's conduct. Wikipedia has a system to resolve these issues, which is outlined at Requests for comment/User conduct. But the first step would be to try to resolve your differences on article talk pages, or with the editor directly:


 * If the dispute is over a particular article, you could try explaining the issues on the article talk page and seeing what the consensus of other editors might be. Or if you and they are the only people working on that article, you could ask for a third opinion from someone uninvolved and likely to bring an independent view. or you might try the Dispute resolution noticeboard.


 * If the dispute is over the editor's conduct rather than their contributions, you could raise the issue with them on their talk page and ask that they bear your concerns in mind. If there's a specific concern, relating to you (ie not some other editor), and it really needs immediate action, you might then go to WP:ANI or somewhere similar. Or,. Wikipedia being a big place, you might find it worthwhile simply moving to a different set of articles and not interacting with the editor you're in dispute with. If they're really engaged in repeated edit wars, incivility, disruption etc, it will be dealt with soon enough.


 * The short version is, I suppose, that the first step in dealing with conflicts between editors is for the editors to try and resolve it themselves, and that admin intervention is unlikely unless there's evidence this has occurred in good faith but nonetheless failed. My best suggestion would be to simply not interact with the person you're in dispute with, and if there's article issues to raise them on the article talk page instead of going back to AN/I. Hope this is helpful. Happy to discuss further. Euryalus (talk) 12:19, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 17
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.


 * John White (surgeon) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to White Bay


 * Prince of Wales (ship) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to John White

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:21, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

User talk:Euryalus
Hi, I want add my article - Maxim Slipchenko. Why you deleted my article? Help me add, please.Fightmaximus (talk) 11:14, 20 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Per the conversation above, it's a near-exact recreation of the article deleted at Articles for deletion/Maxim Slipchenko. You need a claim to notability, and you need reliable sources to support that claim. In their continued absence the article will keep getting deleted. Euryalus (talk) 11:23, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

User talk:Euryalus
I add extra links and Maxim Slipchenko real person, him legend in Muay Thai, look this Facebook page https://www.facebook.com/maks.slipchenko, this site: http://slipchenko.com.ua/, this links youtube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4dJ0-1tVMP4 - him 3 time World champion, this him TV show - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qv0HfV3OFzQ. Why you deleted? What information your need? Maxim Slipchenko legend in Muay Thai. Him author application, this app downloaded in 100 countries - https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/thai-boxing-for-you-free-edition/id440322259?mt=8. Help my please add this article. Thanx. Fightmaximus (talk) 11:36, 20 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi again, sorry for the slight delay in replying. Some comments on these links:
 * The Facebook page and personal website aren't reliable sources because they are both self-published. For an article on a person to meet the notability criteria they need to have been the subject of significant coverage in reliable secondary sources - that is, other people need to have written or reported on them.
 * The youtube link of Slipchenko fighting might be worth including, but I couldn't find it in any version of the article.
 * The TV show link is worth including, but it was already in the version that was deleted via the Deletion discussion, and so was considered by other editors when reaching a consensus to delete the page. Clearly this alone is not sufficient to support the notability of this article.
 * The iTunes app is not relevant to the claim for notability - the article doesn't suggest Slipchenko is notable for his ITunes app but for his boxing.


 * So we're back where we started. If you think the original deletion decision was wrong, there's a page called deletion review where you can present the case for the article to be restored. If instead you have additional material (ie, not just the TV show or self-published sources) then feel free to create another version of the article. But so that your work doesn't get unexpectedly deleted again, I suggest you create it somewhere like User:Fightmaximus/sandbox and get some other editor's opinions on its notability. The WikiProject on boxing would be a good place to find some. And if with the benefit of these opinions the article is considered notable enough for inclusion in an encyclopedia, it can easily be moved from the sandbox to the main article space. Euryalus (talk) 04:28, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Prince of Wales
I enjoyed this article very much. It gives a good picture of the events involving a single ship of the First Fleet. I have sorted out the caption to the picture and want to make a few points.

The book ''The Voyage of Governor Philip" was printed by publisher John Stockdale who didn't get the material until late May 1789, and had it illustrated and printed by November that year. It appears that there must have been some drawings and watercolours sent as illustrations, along with the maps and charts. What the illustrations were, and who did them, and where they are now I don't know.  Phillip drew maps and charts, but he wasn't an artist.

Lieutenant Bradley drew scenes of the settlement. His pictures are very amateurish. However, in the hands of an accomplished illustrator and engraver, like those who made the engraved plates to print the book, well-drawn images, like the ones in the book could have been produced. It is thought that perhaps Bradley produced some of the works from memory after his return to England in 1780, so this would rule them out as a source. On the other hand, while the body of his work is now at the Mitchell Library, some is located in the Natural History Museum in London. This may indicate that he sent pictures back to UK with Shortland.

Two minor points:
 * Please don't call any highly detailed picture a sketch. An artwork is only a "sketch" if it looks sketchy. A detailed drawing isn't a sketch. In this case the work is a print from an engraving made into a copper plate.
 * Minor niggle. I hate the (Americanised) use of the word "likely" as an adverb as in "It was likely by Phillip"  If you are going to use "likely" then it is an adjective and the correct form is "It is likely that it was by Phillip", which is circuitous.   It is much easier to use one or other of the two more-descriptive adverbs available "probably" and "possibly".  "Likely" is the same part of speech as "probable" and "possible", regardless of the "ly" on the end. The test is whether or not you can change the word for "lovely".  "It was lovely by Phillip" doesn't work. "It was lovely that it was by Phillip" does.
 * Amandajm (talk) 02:01, 22 October 2013 (UTC)


 * It might have been lovely by Phillip, except as you correctly point out, it wasn't. Thanks for your edits to the article, especially the shortening of the Long Sentence from Hell. For some reason my sentence structure was off for most of it, so your improvements were very welcome. Agree on "sketch", not sure I agree on "likely" but I won't die in a ditch over it. :) Euryalus (talk) 10:45, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Invitation
Hi Euryalus,

I reviewed your article on the ship Prince of Wales and wanted to say congratulations on the article. I don't know where you live, but you seem to be someone who would be interested in the collections in the Mitchell Library which is the venue for a backstage pass and editathon on 23 November. The State Library is offering us Wikipedians access to some of the original materials in their collection. We are having a WWI editathon afterwards. This is the first time that an Australian cultural institution has opened its doors to us in this way and will be a great opportunity because the Library is providing: one of its best rooms; its expert curators (along with their expertise and their white gloves); a newly launched website (containing new resources); and of course, items from its collection (including rare and usually unavailable material) which we can look at, learn from, and use, to improve WP articles. For example, on the chosen topic (Australia and WWI), the Library holds many diaries and manuscripts from the period.

It should be an interesting event, so if you live anywhere nearby please come. Or if not, perhaps you could participate in the editathon online. As you can see from the Library's project page, they have connected this editathon with their own work. They have already set out a wide range of resources to make things easier for us. Please sign up on the editathon project page if you would like to participate. Hope to see you there! Whiteghost.ink (talk) 07:36, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Prince of Wales (ship)
Gatoclass (talk) 08:03, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Interesting read! Well done with it. Now imagining bugs and rats, ugh...  Ruby  2010/  2013  16:12, 23 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks, that's very kind. She wasn't as bad as her fellow transport Alexander of which the Fleet surgeon said:
 * "The illness complained of was wholly occasioned by the bilge water which had by some means or other risen to so great a height that the panels of the cabin and the buttons on the clothes of the officers were turned nearly black by the noxious effluvia. When the hatches were taken off the stench was so powerful it was scarcely possible to stand over them." Euryalus (talk) 19:03, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Botany Bay
Hi, I wondered if you were local to Botany Bay area and if so if you were interested in Laperouse? --Botanybay1788 (talk) 08:05, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Frederick Eley
Hi. Apologies for reverting your edit without an edit summary. Mistake on my part. The reason was that just writing "born" implies he's still alive, which he quite clearly isn't. In a disambiguation page (with only short-form dates, as opposed to the longer form used in articles and covered by MOS:DOB) I always think it's therefore better to use a question mark if we don't know the date of death. Now we do, of course, it's not a problem. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:52, 11 November 2013 (UTC)


 * No worries. I agree with you - just "born" would suggest he's about 130 years old and alive and well in California. Alas, he isn't, so you were right to revert the change. I have a recollection that question marks are also frowned upon because it suggests to the reader that we are confused (rather than just uninformed); instead MOSDOB recommends some slightly awkward-looking options like "1884 - after 1965" or similar. But in all this thinking about it, it suddenly occurred to me that I could simply actually add the year of death and be done with it! So I did.


 * On a side note the actual article on Frederick Eley (architect) is pretty poor. I know nothing about architecture, but will have a look at it over the next few days. Euryalus (talk) 20:10, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue XCII, November 2013
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 05:40, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Urvashi Rautela
I supposed I followed the tagger in seeing it as a sufficiently close paraphrase of the page to be copyright. The copied(??) page was not listed as a source, despite appearing to be the origin of the text. I can see that it's arguable that it's not a copyright violation, she is notable enough, and the article is no more spammy than others of its ilk. Your call, I have no objections if you want to restore  Jimfbleak -  talk to me?  13:18, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

November 2013
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=583031260 your edit] to William Baker (colonist) may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 ""s. If you have, don't worry: just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20–%20&section=new my operator's talk page].
 * List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 02:04, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Shea (British Marine)|John Shea]], and Captain-Lieutenants Watkin Tench and James Meredith. Baker was promoted to sergeant and assigned to Tench's company

GAN December 2013 Backlog Drive
{| |}

KTU Studentų atstovybė deleted page
Hello, you deleted my page KTU Studentų atstovybė because information was from http://ktusa.lt/ this is my page and if you need confirmation i could sent you email. Could you give me your email? — Preceding unsigned comment added by AusteLabonaite (talk • contribs) 10:47, 4 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Sure. To send me an email just click on the "Email this user" tab in the "tools" section down the left-hand side of the screen. But if you're the owner of the website or the copyright holder for the text, and you want to "donate" that text to Wikipedia, then you need to follow the steps at Donating copyright materials. Specifically:


 * For text, you can send an email, ideally using the language from the template at Declaration of consent for all enquiries:
 * (1) From an address associated with the original publication to [mailto:permissions-en@wikimedia.org permissions-en@wikimedia.org];
 * (2) After sending the email, place OTRS pending on the article's talk page.
 * Someone will reply to your email, indicating whether the content and your license is acceptable and update the page to indicate that the confirmation of the license has been received.


 * Hope that's helpful. Euryalus (talk) 10:59, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 14
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited HMS Eagle (1774), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Battle of Negapatam (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) 09:01, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Convict Ships
Hi Euryalus,

I think you may recently have edited the page

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anne_(convict_ship)

The synopsis box still says 'Tons burthen: 627 ton', but the new 'Construction' section now says '... weighing 384 tons ...'.

Bateson says that 627 was the tonnage for a separate vessel, the 'Anne II', which landed in 1810. Does a page about that vessel remain anywhere on Wikipedia?

I found no mention in Bateson that either ship was alternately named 'Ann'. I have a manuscript which does suggest that, but it gives no reference.

Regards

RAClarke (talk) 17:52, 15 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi. The tons burthen in the article infobox is my error, it should also read 384 which was the tonnage of the 1790s "Anne" which was the former Spanish vessel. Best of my knowledge there is no Wikipedia article on the 1810 "Anne", which weighed 627 tons and was possibly also used as a whaling vessel. On the name "Ann" v "Anne", let me have a hunt about and come back to you - I sent my copy of Bateson back to the library but I might still have some other resources handy. Euryalus (talk) 20:03, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue XCIII, December 2013
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 00:11, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Ruth Bowyer
Hello! Your submission of Ruth Bowyer at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Sionk (talk) 23:42, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks, have amended with an additional reference and a slightly reworded hook. Please let me know if this addresses the issue, and thanks for the swift review. Euryalus (talk) 00:26, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Citation 1 doesn't verify the 7 year sentence, so don't leave it at the end of the sentence in your article. I don't know what the book source says, so I'll have to accept in good faith that it is in the correct place. Sionk (talk) 00:41, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi Sionk. Citation 1 verifies the indictment and verdict - I moved it midsentence to make this clear. The book reference reaffirms the indictment, verdict and sentence, but there's nothing in it not also in the other two refs so I removed it entirely. I left the punishment roll ref at the end as it verifies the sentence only. Euryalus (talk) 00:59, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Maxim Slipchenko
I see it's time for the monthly recreation of the Maxim Slipchenko article (Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Maxim Slipchenko) by a different SPA. Besides the usual SPI and COI questions, is this article any different from the deleted versions? It doesn't look like there are any new accomplishments, just a longer list of references (helped by listing the same references over and over). I thought when this article was salted at AfD last month that would be the end of it, but I was obviously mistaken. Papaursa (talk) 01:34, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Ruth Bowyer
 Harrias  talk 01:02, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

ta
hny satusuro 11:51, 29 December 2013 (UTC)