User talk:Euryalus

This user is in university.

This user is taking a wikibreak and may be away or inactive for varying periods of time.
Although they may occasionally be able to do some editing, messages left for them may not be replied to for a while.
They will be back on Wikipedia when university is over.

Archives

Good article drive notice

This message has been sent to users signed up for the Good articles newsletter. Add or remove your name from the list to subscribe or unsubscribe from future updates. Alternatively, to opt-out of all massmessage mailings, you may add Category:Wikipedians who opt out of message delivery to your user talk page. -- For the drive co-ordinators, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:27, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

April 2021 WikiProject Military History Reviewing Drive

Hey y'all, the April 2021 WikiProject Military History Reviewing Drive begins at 00:01 UTC on April 1, 2021 and runs through 23:59 UTC on April 31, 2021. Points can be earned through reviewing articles on the AutoCheck report, reviewing articles listed at WP:MILHIST/ASSESS, reviewing MILHIST-tagged articles at WP:GAN or WP:FAC, and reviewing articles submitted at WP:MILHIST/ACR. Service awards and barnstars are given for set points thresholds, and the top three finishers will receive further awards. To participate, sign up at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_History/April 2021 Reviewing Drive#Participants and create a worklist at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/April 2021 Reviewing Drive/Worklists (examples are given). Further details can be found at the drive page. Questions can be asked at the drive talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:24, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Happy First Edit Day!

Have a very happy first edit anniversary!

From the Birthday Committee, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:28, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Precious anniversary

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:49, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Gerda Arendt: Belatedly, thank you for these messages. Always nice to hear a kind word from afar. -- Euryalus (talk) 11:48, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for sending a ban message kindly, that's new. (Compare. Same dates.) I still feel that Wikipedia would have been better without excluding an editor who helped greatly to add content to this project, - more than I did. Where did we go wrong, deviating from collaboration to blaming one person? Why had we to kick someone (out) who was down (and gone) already? Why are a few people some of whom didn't even look deeply enough into the problems "the community"? Why is good faith in so short supply? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:36, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Gerda Arendt: Hi, and thanks for the message. I agree this is a terrible shame -- whatever LouisAlain's approach to referencing they were clearly someone with a commitment to Wikipedia and some fantastic contributions over the years. And the referencing thing could have been dealt with in other ways, for example by creating their articles in draft or in userspace, and having someone else check the refs before posting them live. They decided against these options at AN (as is their right), but I wish they hadn't as the ban might not have proceeded.

Also agree there's a wider issue re the decline of collaboration. Have been here long enough to remember when unsourced sentences were responded to with "citation needed" tags rather than reversion. And when new pages weren't immediately tagged for deletion if the first edit was imperfect. It's hard to work out why this has changed - perhaps the years of trolls, sealions, paid editors and POV-pushers just wore down community trust. Solutions are needed, but will require more thought.

And all that said: the LouisAlain referencing issue was a real concern, especially the use of new accessdates for references that had never been checked. That was the most disappointing part of the whole thing, because it takes advantage of other's trust. If I saw a reference with a recent accesssdate from any respected editor, it would never occur to me that I'd need to check it again. The community's decision was ultimately about that loss of trust.

So where to from here re LouisAlain? I guess that's up to them. There were plenty of editors at AN who would have agreed to lesser restrictions than a ban, had that been acceptable to him. And perhaps after reflection he might still desire to edit here, and will lodge an appeal agreeing to some kind of restriction. Someone once told me that "trust arrives on foot and leaves on horseback," so it will take some to restore. But it's not impossible, and not everyone has a pitchfork and a flaming brand for good-faith editors who were removed from the community and want to return.

Or perhaps they won't appeal. Most people don't, and most then find other ways to express themselves and share their love of knowledge online. If LouisAlain doesn't come back to en-WP then hopefully we can all agree to wish them all the best wherever their interests take them. And to go on creating articles (and referencing them) in the area they used to work in. -- Euryalus (talk) 00:39, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your thoughts. I invite you to a stroll over my talk and look for his name. Perhaps ban me, because I do it all the time: add today's date as access-date when the link still works. In half of the cases when I translate from German, links don't work any more. How can a French person be expected to not only translate but also check if the German ref supports a claim? You mentioned trust. Why not trust in good faith that a German article - about a museum, a musicologist, a music educator - is correct, and add a citation tag if in doubt. People said on AN that no article would be better than one with no solid references, and I disagree. Would no article be better that Max Creutz?? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:47, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mildly, the Max Creutz article looks fine to me and thanks for the opportunity to read it. Its quality seems to be as much thanks to you as to LouisAlain, but ultimately everything is a collaboration with someone. I have no idea if the references are accurate because I'm sadly monolingual. But I'm happy to take your word for it that you've checked them in editing the page, which is probably what I would have done upon seeing a page entirely edited by LouisAlain, at least prior to the AN thread. I guess that is what I was saying about trust: it should jsut be the routine expectation that longterm respected editors are correctly using sources. I can understand the community's displeasure in finding that not done in this case. And of course I entirely agree with this sentence: How can a French person be expected to not only translate but also check if the German ref supports a claim? It seems a Sisyphean task to monolinguists like me, but that's why I don't even try it and instead stick to sources in my own language. That limits my editing: I have for example a great set of works on eighteenth century Dutch naval vessels but I cannot turn them into articles because the references within them aren't in English. It's disappointing, but there it is: no reference checking means no article.

Despite the above, I don't really want to relitigate the entire AN thread so will simply restate that it's a shame that LouisAlain ended up banned, and the discussion might have gone a different way if he'd been willing to do have someone like you formally check his referencing before articles went live. I also agreed with you up above re adding citation tags to unsourced material from respected editors. That's the way it used to be done and it mostly worked fine. But the community is in a different place now: there's more attention to sourcing and less tolerance for having to cleaning up after others. Plus things like misleading accessdates issue would never have been tolerated, back then or now. It was unnecessary, and probably tipped the balance for some people at AN. -- Euryalus (talk) 08:11, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I can give you easily hundred more articles such as Creutz, or check here (66 and more to come) for LouisAlain, and here (68), and here (54). I debated with myself to leave this heartless community nine years ago, but decided against it, and am immune since. The work just got harder, and the loss of articles that will remain unwritten is no pleasant prospect. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:39, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Ports articles by quality

A tag has been placed on Category:Ports articles by quality indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 15:50, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:WikiProject Ports articles

A tag has been placed on Category:WikiProject Ports articles indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:02, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Restore Deleted Article of ádám borics

Please restore this article that was deleted by an AFD. [1] . As per [2] and his current record [3], he know qualifies for a standalone article. [4] Thank you BlackAmerican (talk) 12:41, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@BlackAmerican: Thanks for the message and sorry for delayed reply. Can't directly override an AfD but feel free to add additional notable material and send to deletion review. I've userfied it to User:BlackAmerican/Userfied Borics article so you have the earlier content to work from. -- Euryalus (talk) 00:23, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for August 20

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited The Wild Colonial Boy, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Jack Donohue.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:56, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ROPE

I have drafted an alternative version of this essay at User:Cullen328/sandbox/One last chance and invite your input. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:04, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiproject Military history coordinator election nominations open

Nominations for the upcoming project coordinator election are now open. A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next year. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. More information on being a coordinator is available here. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 UTC on 14 September! Voting doesn't commence until 15 September. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the coord team. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:58, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiproject Military history coordinator election nomination period closing soon

Nominations for the upcoming project coordinator election are still open, but not for long. A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next year. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. More information on being a coordinator is available here. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 UTC on 14 September! No further nominations will be accepted after that time. Voting will commence on 15 September. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the current coord team. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:42, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Military history coordinator election voting has commenced

Hey y'all, voting for the 2021 Wikiproject Military history coordinator tranche is now open. This is a simple approval vote; only "support" votes should be made. Project members should vote for any candidates they support by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September 2021. Voting will be conducted at the 2021 tranche page itself. Appropriate questions for the candidates can also be asked. Thanks, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:38, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiproject Military history coordinator election voting period closing soon

Hey y'all, voting for the 2021 Wikiproject Military history coordinator tranche will be closing soon. This is a simple approval vote; only "support" votes should be made. Project members should vote for any candidates they support by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September 2021. Voting will be conducted at the 2021 tranche page itself. Thanks, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:32, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hussey

Hi, Euryalus, thanks for your note. I have still a bit of a way to go with this one, and with recent efforts on William Garrard and George Barne (died 1558), all interrelated for obvious reasons, where I need to develop Barne and Hussey on the Marian period/Muscovy co, and Garrard on his shrieval year (as per Barne's mayoral). I am just working over Hussey waiting to go through the Pole period and the Parker consecration register controversy.... I'm looking forward to tying it all up a bit over the next couple of weeks while I grope through a course of antibiotics! Your kind remark is appreciated. Eebahgum (talk) 01:16, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. re Wild Colonial Boy, they have missed the best line - "One morning on the prairie as Jackie rode along, Listening to the kukaburra's pleasant laughing song..." Someone in the room usually used to interject a maniacal laughing noise when this line was sung (ha-ha-ha-HAha). Kukaburras make a mocking noise Eebahgum (talk) 09:13, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AN close

I take issue with your close at WP:AN re: "There's consensus against porting over articles from other Wikipedias without personally checking the references. This is already encapsulated in WP:SAYWHERE and parts of Help:Translation." This would be a major policy change, and I don't think something like this should be deemed "consensus" without being explicitly proposed and advertised somewhere other than a discussion on WP:AN about user conduct (which was not publicized sufficiently for people engaged in translation on Wikipedia). Also, Help:Translation definitely does not say that personally checking references is required (and given the level of detail it contains for other topics, if it meant to say this, it would). Would you consider revising this to encourage a properly advertised discussion elsewhere? Calliopejen1 (talk) 19:58, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Calliopejen1: Hi, and thanks for the message.

You're right, the word "personally" is incorrect. People should not include material in Wikipedia that is unsourced; nor should they include material that mentions sources that haven't actually been looked at. Of course it is possible to translate something and have someone else then check the the sourcing for you, but this is ideally not something you'd do with live edits because unless/until someone actually does check your sourcing there's at least a chance that what is being presented is outdated or wrong. However, to make this more specific to this case, what would you think of this: "There's consensus in this thread against LouisAlain's actions in porting over articles from other Wikipedias without ~~personally~~anyone checking the references."

On the wider issue I don't personally see the need to amend translation guidelines to make it explicit that you cannot copy material to en-WP without anyone checking the references. The translations page needs to be read in context with other policies against adding unreferenced materials. Material where a generalised reference link is just pasted in without being looked, at might as well have no reference at all for all the validity it has. But that's just my opinion, which counts for 1/42millionth of the editor base. Many people have sincere and credible views on both sides of the argument about how translation referencing should be handled (with a sterner hand; with more good faith that whatever original referencing it had is fine, with greater regard for the complexities of multilingual sourcing, etc). So regardless of my opinion or the community's view on LouisAlain's editing access: if anyone thinks en-WP would benefit from more policy clarity on how to handle refs in translations then that should certainly be encouraged and can be commenced by anyone at any time, without feeling that some random AN close is the final say. -- Euryalus (talk) 22:37, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]