User talk:EyeSerene

Home

Talk

E-mail

Watchlist

Contribs

Sandbox

Essays

Userboxes

Notices

Scripts

Awards

Menu

Archivebox

Quicklinks

messages

Talk archives
	Sep 06–Jul 07		Jul 07–Sep 07		Sep 07–Nov 07
	Nov 07–Mar 08		Mar 08–Apr 08		Apr 08–Jul 08
	Jul 08–Aug 08		Aug 08–Oct 08		Oct 08–Dec 08
	Dec 08–Feb 09		Feb 09–Mar 09		Mar 09–May 09
	May 09–July 09		July 09–Aug 09		Aug 09–Sept 09
	Sept 09–Nov 09		Nov 09–Dec 09		Dec 09–Feb 10
	Feb 10–Mar 10		Mar 10–May 10		May 10–June 10
	June 10–Aug 10		Aug 10–Nov 10		Nov 10–Apr 11
	Apr 11–Oct 11		Oct 11–May 15		May 15–

Click here to leave me a new message, or use the various edit tabs on the page. Don't forget to sign your message by including four tildes (~~~~) at the end - I like to know who I'm talking to ;)

V-B

Am thinking we should go for another FA review in the New Year after we can address everything that has been raised. As for where to go now, do you think it is wise to keep ce the article; i.e. ask Steve and Maralia give the once over?

Likewise the casualty section that was requested has now been pinpointed as a possible problem, do you have any suggestions on how to address them? Personaly i dont like the idea of tables and would prefer not to see one added but do you think it is a worthwhile suggestion?--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 16:22, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Ill ask Steve if he would like to have another crack over the article first; ill go and ask now.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 12:35, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

A bit of a delayed happy new year, but better late than never! I have just worked through most of the points raised by Abraham on the V-B talkpage bar one iirc; he has suggested that the lede be cut down a tad. Could you take a look at this and address maybe?--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 12:14, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

On reflection the statement from Forty regarding casualties for the 48 hour period looks a bit odd, do you think we should remove it and stick to the information provided by the other sources to keep it more strightforward and poentially less confusing?--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 10:48, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

LOL, i will take a gander =]--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 10:54, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Yea that was me! I will run through Taylor etc later on, am pretty sure they establish the numbers or at least chunks of A squadron was still up and running and will provide the cite.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 11:01, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Give it 5-10 years then it wont be OR ;) haha. Will deffo check out the sources ASAP and dig out what i can on A squadron.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 11:34, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Really love the lede, reads amazing and really sums up everything imo! Well done! =]--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 14:20, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

"Now this is not the end. It is not even the beginning of the end. but it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning."

In more ways than one for this article i think--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 10:36, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I had forgot there was still a few bits and bobs to do; i should be able to get some free time to go over the article, the talkpage and my sources and throw some other bits and bobs as needed.

Well 24hrs without anything seems rather good ... the problem has just migrated to other places atm lol--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 12:05, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Dont sweat it! :) --EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 18:50, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Finally managed to get my hands of a cheap ass copy of Marie's work (or Henri ... never can remember which is the surname lol) should be with me in the next week and a half. Will double check the quotes and see what else there is once it turns up.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 13:47, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

The book has just come and i have checked out the Schiender comments at the back of the book - the ones in the article are just the tip of the iceberg!--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 13:05, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

maybe we find a book that says that marseille was a noob because he had problems with landing. iam sure there is a "historian" out there, claiming this . just a joke..... Blablaaa (talk) 20:40, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XIV (November 2009)

The November 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 08:55, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

MisterBee1966 (talk) is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the Christmas cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas3}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

operation charnwood

on the villers bocage article the british claims(delaforce wrotes the unit history and copied this claims) of german tanks knocked out are in the infobox so i take the german claims of tanks knocked out at charnwood. they claimed 103 but 80 are in the box. its the same relation like on villers bocage. maybe they were immobilized or something else or maybe the claims are wrong but the claims have to come to the box . the explanation is on the villersbocage page where enigma explains... . i hope its ok , its the same situation —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.176.148.49 (talk) 02:53, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Id rather not fan the flames however there are few key issues with what you wrote that tarnish your entire point:

1. The divisional history has been consulted and the claim the division made has been inputted into the article - the division's staff claim 9 tanks knocked out.
2. Daniel Taylor notes the British regiments claimed 14 tanks knocked out during the battle but acknowledges that this would be a figure that includes tanks latter recovered or only immobilised but STILL put out of action during the battle. To note this is actually mentioned.
3. The only claim of 15 tanks comes from Delaforce, who wrote a book ABOUT the division not a book FOR the division; he doesnt state they are claims, he doesnt say his source is Taylor, the regiments or even the division itself, he states the Germans had 15 tanks knocked out in the battle. Him and him alone; in short your point is groundless.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 01:31, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

yep delaforce not even mentions his sources, no note or explanation.... . very reliable men. immediate wartime claims are always exggarated. the six tanks which were not found are temporaly disabled or double count of infantry. absolutly improper for the infobox. wartime claims should maybe be mentioned in the casualties section with the explanation of the issue of overclaiming. bringing them to the box while better sources are available is bias and nothing else. there are many infoboxes which should be filled with immediate wartime claims. we start with CHARNWOOD —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.176.144.42 (talk) 19:11, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Thats what is called a strawman argument; should i note how Reynolds, who provides the lowest figure, does not provide his source, nor do most of the others.

Second you can keep rambling away but you are not addressing the point that Delaforce is not a primary source, is not he immediate post war divisional history, does not use wartime claims, and was written during the 90s not during or just after the war. How do you know Delaforce is using wartime claims, or double counting where is your evidence?

Taylor notes that the tanks claimed were all disabled during the battle, which is a compeltly different matter and infact provides a different figure to Delaforce.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 10:15, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Happy New Year!

A noiseless patient spider, I mark'd where on a little promontory it stood isolated, Mark'd how to explore the vacant vast surrounding, It launch'd forth filament, filament, filament, out of itself, Ever unreeling them, ever tirelessly speeding them. And you O my soul where you stand, Surrounded, detached, in measureless oceans of space, Ceaselessly musing, venturing, throwing, seeking the spheres to connect them, Till the bridge you will need be form'd, till the ductile anchor hold, Till the gossamer thread you fling catch somewhere, O my soul." —"A Noiseless Patient Spider" by Walt Whitman Happy New Year Awadewit (talk) 05:53, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

GA Sweeps update

Thanks to everyone's efforts to the GA Sweeps process, we are currently over 90% done with only 226 articles remain to be swept! As always, I want to thank you for using your time to ensure the quality of the older GAs. With over 50 members participating in Sweeps, that averages out to about 4 articles per person! If each member reviews an article once a week this month (or several!), we'll be completely finished. At that point, awards will be handed out to reviewers. As an added incentive, if we complete over 100 articles reviewed this month, I will donate $100 to Wikipedia Forever on behalf of all GA Sweeps participants. I hope that this incentive will help to increase our motivation for completing Sweeps while supporting Wikipedia in the process. If you have any questions about reviews or Sweeps let me know and I'll be happy to get back to you. Again, thank you for taking the time to help with the process, I appreciate your efforts! --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 00:03, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Tables

Just wondering; do you have any idea how to get the table at the bottom of this article, British Armoured formations of the Second World War, to display better? I've had a play around but it still looks a bit naff in my opinion.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:36, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Figured it out, nevermind.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 03:54, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words :)--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 19:08, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLVI (December 2009)

The December 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 03:09, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Intentionally erroneus editions

Could you give him warnings about adding misguiding references to this art, User:M.K introduces completely bad data found on incorrect references [1] [2], that can be found as intentionally hoax. He even reverted my admonishions from his page [3] thanx Mathiasrex (talk) 17:33, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Join a worthy project...

Wikipedia:WikiProject Magical Realism Reconsidered! Awadewit (talk) 19:44, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Happy New Year

Hi EyeSerene, I was just wondering if you did manage to take any pics of a frosty John Baskeyfield when you were up north? I've just had an offer from User:Nthep who has received permission from another website to re-use their pics, but I didn't want your effort to go to waste. Cheers, Ranger Steve (talk) 12:25, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Cool, thanks again for trying. Ranger Steve (talk) 20:12, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

School Rumble FAC

There are some problems listed by one of the reviewers. They also suggest a set of fresh eyes if you can find someone else who is good at copy editing (the anime & manga WikiProject lacks anyone who can do anything beyond basic copy editing) :(.陣内_Jinnai 05:19, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Task forces

Hi. What happened to the Pakistani and Indian military history task forces? :( Acejet (talk) 12:30, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Not a bad idea, but I was wondering if something could be done about the "chakra" symbol on the template, when the pages are taggged under the task force. That's more of an Indian symbol than being relevant to South Asian militaries such as Pakistan, Afghanistan etc. Acejet (talk) 12:47, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Afd on Daniel Razon

Hi! I will gladly submit to the closing admin's decision, whatever it be. But if the article is not deleted, then please do consider merging it with UNTV. 'I'm sure you have seen the matchless ordeal Howard went through just to get one questionable RS to support this guy's presumed "notability." Someone who is truly notable wouldn't be that difficult. Howard and other pro-keep editors are from the Philippines and naturally want their people represented in WP. – Shannon Rose ^Talk 18:21, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I also hope you read the final notes I have added 17 seconds after you placed the closure in progress tag. – Shannon Rose ^Talk 18:25, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

RE: Arabic

I'm afraid that is not Arabic, it's Farsi language, you will need an editor from Iran for this. Nonetheless, I can read what he's adding and I agree that this is certainly a vandal, because he added the word "قاتل" which means in Arabic (and I assume in Farsi too, because the languages are kind of close) a "Murderer." Sorry I couldn't be of much help. Best. Yazan (talk) 04:44, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

SACD

Hi!

You recently sent me a message regarding the SACD article. I made the changes after a lengthy discussion on the SACD discussion page (during which time, I presented many arguments, received responses from both Samboy and Bink, and you never showed up). If you disagreed with me, you could have presented your reasoning there to overturn mine. I acted on the changes for I wanted to be bold, as suggested by Wiki and Bink (I found out this later though), and I received no objection over my most recent arguments prior to making the corresponding changes. I have just repeated my argument there again, and hopefully you would respond.

By the way, you chose (by rolling back to a previous state without providing any further edit) to use Marbecks' website [4] as a reference for SACD releases. The link opens up to a message that says "there haven’t been any classical SACD titles released in the last 90 days.", which is absolutely wrong (please look at [5]). Marbecks' out-of-date-ness was my stated reason for its removal. Please explain why you think that Marbecks' link should be used. Thank you! Iubrecording (talk) 18:42, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you! I have just replied.Iubrecording (talk) 02:17, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Rambles map

I put a few last tweaks at my talk page - thanks so much! Awadewit (talk) 16:28, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

I had noticed them, but thanks for the reminder :) I'll upload the (final?) version shortly. EyeSerene^talk 16:59, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for helping to mediate what could have been an ugly edit war in Super Audio CD and helping us find a number of high-quality references which have helped us to keep the article up to date and be better referenced. Samboy (talk) 18:30, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Good News for the Academy

Hello, EyeSerene. You have new messages at Auntieruth55's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

TomStar81 (Talk) 01:14, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps you'd consider making yourself available to assist the noobs as well? Ive already offered to help anyone new to the site that needs help; if you care to lend assistance as well, you can add your name here. TomStar81 (Talk) 09:15, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

re:Milhist task force reorganisation

Well, that's quite a surprise for me as I wasn't able to follow the discussions on coordinators talk page and therefore wasn't aware of such decisions. However, merging the Romanian TF into the Balkan TF is wrong by principle, as Romania and Moldova are not part of the Balkan peninsula. What I would have understand would be merging it within a Central European TF, with a Romanian working group to be taken into consideration (due to the fact that it seems the ex RO TF means about half of the Balkans TF). I know that it's my fault I didn't follow the discussions on coordinators talk page, but I believe somebody should have pinged me especially as I created that task force myself. --Eurocopter (talk) 12:23, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Then that explains everything, as I'm not accessing very often the main project talkpage. Well, what's done it's done. Perhaps those who decided this were aware of the issue mentioned by me above and considered it's better to ignore it. --Eurocopter (talk) 17:25, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Something for you

		The da Vinci Barnstar
		In recognition of your diligence in carrying out a series of complex task force mergers, I hereby award you with this barnstar. Kirill [talk] [prof] 13:05, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes indeed, thank you very much for following through on all those mergers/renames...my brain bleeds at the thought of the amount of work. You're a peach! Maralia (talk) 23:00, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

You're very welcome, glad to be of service :) EyeSerene^talk 09:12, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Hello from the Alejo Carpentier group!

Hi Eyeserene! I noticed your discussion on the WP:MRR talk page and would like to thank-you for your interest in our class project! Currently the groups are putting together a bibliographies and we should then start adding information to our respective articles. Look for new additions soon! If you would like to help my group with the Alejo Carpentier page, it would be much appreciated. Let us know if you'd be okay with us asking you for help when needed. Thanks again! Katie322 (talk) 03:21, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

#switch/#if help

Would you mind coming over here and helping me with some intricate #switch/#if stuff for a template? I'm still learning how all of it works, and these bits are still somewhat confusing to me. I appreciate your time. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 19:08, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Smedley Butler

Thank you very much, that was my first adventure with A class reviews, next stop FA. --Kumioko (talk) 19:37, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Compliments

You should see all the nice things that are being said about your map at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Rambles in Germany and Italy/archive1! Awadewit (talk) 22:01, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you!

		The Graphic Designer's Barnstar
		Thank you so much for the beautiful map that you made depicting Mary Shelley's rambles around Europe. Your hard work is very much appreciated. Awadewit (talk) 02:41, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Tactable/Hill 262

I have just noticed that both articles are at odds with one another over German losses at Hill 262 but both are using the same source; McGilvray, p. 54.

I dont have access to this source, do you?--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 09:11, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Nice 1 =]--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 09:17, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Aye aye--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 10:54, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

7th Infantry Division (United States) Copy-edit

Hello. I am in the process of pushing the 7th Infantry Division article to Featured status, however it failed its most recent review because one user requested a copy-edit. I was wondering if you would be willing to provide a copy edit for the article or if you knew someone else willing to do so. Thank you, —Ed!^(talk) 23:58, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

trolling?

please answer my simple question why u use different methods for allies and germans, ANSWER!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.176.149.211 (talk) 18:48, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

brevity

its was cited in the note above, i wrote it in front of the note, so its better now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.176.142.82 (talk) 21:15, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Block

Would you consider extending the block for user:167.206.79.227 due to just being off a block yesterday and doing the same vandalism, or at least protecting Marriage through my WP:RPP request? CTJF83 chat 19:58, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Extended to three months; I should have looked at their contributions more closely. Thanks for checking :) EyeSerene^talk 20:02, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the extension. CTJF83 chat 20:05, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Patrickneil

I understand that you don't like that there are non-Turks in your city.

This is what Patrickneil told me as you can see on the history of Alanya. User is showing me to the community as a racist person. This is a big fault and be surely punished. I am not racist and noone may show me like racist. Thank you. MULAZIMOGLU (talk) 11:23, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

The two week block of User:Valkyrie Red has expired

As blocking admin, it might be appropriate for you to unblock. On the user's talkpage, I've thrown down an olive branch, some unsolicited advice and an offer of mentorship if the user is sincere about wanting to make positive contributions. Thanks for your attention. BusterD (talk) 14:16, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

On reading the unblock page, I see this unblock is a function of the timestamp and the software, so the block is already lifted. Sorry for my inexperience; I've been around almost five years, but still don't have that much experience with blocks... FYI, I'll be eyes on this user, not a stalker, but a watcher. We've wasted too much time, so if the user comes back hot, well, it will end badly. BusterD (talk) 14:41, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Yongle the Great

Still persistent, usually on a daily basis but not today. See [6] where SpikeToronto has offered to help as needed. Can I tell him he can call on you for blocks? I'm thinking of times when I'll be out of town and have little or no Internet access. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 14:45, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Page protection for List of FC Barcelona records and statistics

Hey there, can you please protect this page from being vandalized again. It was protected 1 week ago, due to Point of View (POV) disputes. The protection has expired and vandal has re-appeared again. This IP user: 41.248.142.193 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) and possibly a sock account by Love19886 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), has continued to removed and dispute the references provided. I think the only way to solved this problem is to protect the article from being edited because it doesn't seem to stop. There is alot of Point Of Views, indiscriminate, favoritism and promotional edits by this user, and there is not enough references provided. Its strange, when references are provided, the user continues to complain. It is also strange that this article has been dominated by Point of Views; its like Point of Views are correct and references are seen as incorrect.

The references and information i have provided on this article are accurate; perhaps it should be nominated in the featured article list in Wikipedia. Thanks--Nciqu (talk) 15:20 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi EyeSerene :) ok, thanks, however the user: Love19886 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has vandalized the article again. I think the only option is to protect the page or block the user because it doesn't seem to stop. Thanks Nciqu (talk) 03:38, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi EyeSerene, i'm reporting this IP user: 41.140.10.181 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) which has vandalized the article. Thanks :) and all the best with you to. Nciqu(talk) 20:30, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Third opinion

Hi, EyeSerene. How are you doing? I'm just looking for some sort of unoffical, neutral third-opinion and involvement on the talkpage dicussion in regards to content of an article. I'm trying to copyedit the British National Party article in following with the peer review (particularly in regards to neutrality concerns there) but also some WP:MOS points, such as article size, WP:Not news, WP:Summary and so on. Trying to bring it up to a GA level. Basically much of the history a part from the last part is done and it seems (from my perspective) that some users are trying to block article progress for political reasons. I've been asked to discuss content on the talk, which is fine by me (obviously), but I'm not getting much contructive or real feedback from the reverters, which is begining to anger me. There is either extreme pedantry when it comes to article sources... or, simply lethargic answers and then they go on their way, leaving me waiting. This is the copyedit reverted before.

Emeraude, though personally bias against the article subject, seems to get on with it fairly constructively when the copyedit itself is in process in the article, although changes the wording around (fine). But some others are completely non-constructive, a wholesale revert and run job; Verbal's contribution was to bring me into a revert-war, demanding talk discussion and then when I started a section on it, only say "ditto". Snowded's approach when it comes to the actual content is similarly lethargic. I want to get this thing copyedited and improved, but because I have ADHD, I quickly lose focus (as well as getting frustrated pretty easily!) and go onto something else, so I was trying to get some advise or outside neutral opinion, to guide while the iron is still hot so to speak. Thanks. - Yorkshirian (talk) 21:08, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi EyeSerene, sorry for the very late reply, been really busy. Thanks for the response, I'm not so much looking for somebody to "back up" my content position, but rather a neutral and fair arbitrator for the article talk (an admin) who has worked on GA's and knows what is required to make sure everything get in line with the WP:MOS. Obviously there are some POV concerns in the article-for instance the synthy list of petty "crimes" commited by various BNP members, in violation of WP:NOT "Wikipedia is not a rap sheet", when compared to other parties like Sinn Fein, who have murdered thousands of people, yet has no such section.

Also, I'm asking you because you're familiar with my... ahem, temprement and are aware of certain situations. From my perspective (and I may be wrong), but it seems to me a case of pulling a tiger by the tail with Snowded and Verbal. The former for instance keeps bringing up the fact that I was blocked before (seemingly at random). And there may be foul play at work to try and bait me, through general unconstructiveness on the talk, in the hopes of getting an over-masculine response to try and get me "punished" as a result. This coupled with the political considerations of the former and the fact that a general election is coming up may be a motivation to halt article progress. - Yorkshirian (talk) 05:44, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLVII (January 2010)

The January 2010 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 03:30, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

February GA Sweeps update

Progress as of January 2010

Thanks to everyone's efforts to the GA Sweeps process, we are currently over 95% done with around 130 articles left to be swept! Currently there are over 50 members participating in Sweeps, that averages out to about 3 articles per person! If each member reviews an article once a week this month (or several!), we'll be completely finished. At that point, awards will be handed out to reviewers. Per my message last month, although we did not review 100 articles last month, I still made a donation of $90 (we had 90 reviews completed/initiated) to Wikipedia Forever on behalf of all GA Sweeps reviewers. I would like to thank everyone's efforts for last month, and ask for additional effort this month so we can be finished. I know you have to be sick of seeing these updates (as well as Sweeps itself) by now, so please do consider reviewing a few articles if you haven't reviewed in a while. If you have any questions about reviews or Sweeps let me know and I'll be happy to get back to you. Again, thank you for taking the time to help with the process, I appreciate your efforts! --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 02:31, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Re:AOB

How about we bring it up at the end of the month when we can put a notice about it on the Bugle. That way those reading the newsletter can see that we are fishing for a name and we can get feedback from all interested editors while we are running the coordinator elections. Would that work? TomStar81 (Talk) 16:22, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Urgent

Hello, EyeSerene. You have new messages at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history/Coordinators#Major_milmos_incident.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

TomStar81 (Talk) 06:40, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your RfA Support

EyeSerene - Thank for your participation and support in my recent successful RfA. Your confidence and trust in me is much appreciated. As a new admin I will try hard to keep from wading in too deep over the tops of my waders, nor shall I let the Buffalo intimidate me.--Mike Cline (talk) 08:54, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Trafalgar order of battle and casualties

Please see Talk:Trafalgar order of battle and casualties#Gravina--Toddy1 (talk) 20:35, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

hi

i responed. btw iam the ip which wrote on battle of villers bocage discussion . only that u know.... Blablaaa (talk) 21:18, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Yamato copyedit question

It's going superbly well so far, and thank-you again for all of your help.

One thing I am wondering however, looking over the article as it stands now: Are the sections on "1944" and "1945" too disproportionately large in relation to the rest of the article? They seem to be somewhat bloated, and I know that FAC has frowned upon that kind of disproportion in the past. Cam ^(Chat) 00:04, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

bellamy

is bellamy given tank losses for the wehrmacht?Blablaaa (talk) 10:43, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi, feel free to drop in whenever. I have Bellamy, its a good book isn't it? Dapi89 (talk) 10:59, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Epsom peer recognition

I just googled Epsom to find a map of the battlefield, forgetting the one actually in the article we worked on, and found the map uploaded on a different website. It was actually an airsoft website giving background info on the events they are running and quite intresting at the bottom they had this "The text and images above are curtesy of Wikipedia. The full article here is well worth a read."

XD --EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 18:50, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Beautiful Day

It's me, User talk:70.54.181.70 again--back on the library computer.
(Might as well reply here now. :)
Thanks again for your help.
Here's a song that shows a bit the way I feel
Sook-Yin Lee's Beautiful 2:47
You might want to minimize the screen 0:18 to 0:40 into the video, but the song's good.
Cheers.
205.189.194.251 (talk) 22:07, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks - I can't get youtube at work (filters!), but I'll take a look tonight. EyeSerene^talk 10:56, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Yep, good song, she reminds me a little of Bjork :) Thanks for the link. I'm also glad I was of help - just remember to keep cool yourself and that assistance is never too far away: WP:AIV for obvious ongoing vandalism that needs a quick response; WP:ANI for more complicated issues; or any active admin's talkpage (bearing in mind that the first two options may produce a quicker response). EyeSerene^talk 18:35, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

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

Regarding the Invasion of Goa

Greetings Eye Serene, Regarding the "protection" you placed on the Wikipedia site "The Indian Annexation of Goa", I suggest you reconsider. The problem isn't the number of POW's Deepak D'Souza places (which is wrong and is being used to increase Portuguese troop strength on the territory on the day of invasion - his source makes no claim to what is stated), the real problem is the erasing of External Links to some great sources full of excellent pictures, graphics, maps and detailed analysis (in Portuguese) of the invasion. Any thourough analysis of Deepak D'Souza's interventions on that site reveal that he censors, edits and "undoes" many useful facts inserted into the Wikipedia site regarding that event. That warps the content. Analyse the discussions he had with various users, its illustrative. Sincerely, Goali (talk) 20:07, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank You

Thank you for your kind advice EyeSerene. Being new to this wiki-world you shed light on a great deal. I will consider this valuable information, and eventually will make some insertions into three articles where I notice there is a great deal of misinformation being conveyed, inserts deleted and sources being erased by this sort of site censorer Deepak D'Souza. Best Regards, Goali (talk) 13:34, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

History of terrorism

Actually my restoration, brings back the work of many editors and rolls back the work of one disruptive editor, perhaps you should read the talk archive and content before making blind accusations, wikipedia isn't a soapbox for one editors personal agenda and POV. Sherzo (talk) 16:21, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

User:Yorkshirian, Talk:Sinn Féin

Hi, I would assume you consider yourself somewhat guiding and sympathetic as regards User:Yorkshirian. This user is making comments for which the reasoning appears difficult to understand interspersed with derogatory overtones on Talk:Sinn Fein. Would you like to make some sense of it? I'm sure you can. Thanks, ~ R.T.G 20:28, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, you are basically saying that you will not provide any input. This is compounding to my impression of you as a mentor for this user (i.e. not so very much of a mentor after all, more of a comraderous overseer) This reaction is along the lines of your long poetic anti-nationalism quotes on the other occassion that you opened your wing to shelter this bigoted user. You should think about this: if Hitler was a vegan and would have sent you to concentration as quickly for animal cruelty as for being a Jew, champions that have a twisted alter ego may turn out to be less than heroes. But at least the animals got a fair break for a while, from your perspective, right? Sorry to trouble you so much. Thank you for your examination of my civility but I should reserve the motives to query lengthy derogotising as some sort of crap and remove such comments, especially when they appear to have little else in basis. You know, reflect that bigoted imagination that makes some worlds go around. I won't bother to give it a political nametag because it would be too tempting and easy to confuse then. So long ~ R.T.G 16:54, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry but User:Yorkshirian is an instigator not a reactionary and you yourself do not seem to consider what you refer to as "ammunition to be used against himself" as just that. You suggest to me that responding to this user in a way to figure out what he wants... I have repeatedly encountered this user bigoting himself with most attacking and bigoted remarks. An experienced editor hell bent on bigoted dialogue? I see only room to prevent that before considering other matters. If you do not understand my Hitler analogy, I obviously have not understood your nationalism analogy produced on the last occasion User:Yorkshirian was the hot topic. Suffice to say that if a person were nationalist, or anti-nationalist, but fair and not bigoted in any way, they shouldn't really have broken any moral ground (is it nationalism or bigotry that concerns you?). Regardless, I see you as a particularly forgiving and guiding figure as regards this user, moreso than any other, and would like to convince you the difference in value between talk of "ammunition" and pointing out specific problems. If you are unwilling or unable to take that step but remaining able to defend this user, I would have to question your conduct as you imply. You have defended User:Yorkshirian quite a few times including this occasion in a manner to suggest there has not really been any problem, that the problem is with other users although User:Yorkshirian is unquestionably an instigator. As a nationalist or anti-nationalist, bigotry becomes you as the weakest link under peer review unless your peers are particularly lacking in savory and scruples. If you were going to provide any comforting words for User:Yorkshirian on this occasion you would probably have done so but for sure, there is a cat in that bag you have. You should feed it. ~ R.T.G 20:48, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Tao 2911

Hi Eyeserene,

Since you took the time to respond to a thread at WP:ANI about User:Tao2911 I wonder if you could look at these diffs where he posts attacks on me at my talk page here and here and at the Adi Da talk page? I do not wish to file another report as he will construe this as another attack, and continue to escalate his attacks. I am going to disaasociate myself from the Adi Da article now. My presence there is not helping. Thanks for any help you can offer. PS I am not an administrator or an aspiring administrator as Tao claims. --Diannaa ^TALK 14:59, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi Eyeserence,

Regarding user Tao2911, it seems that he has two sockpuppets right now, both of which have been reported. I am wondering if it possible to keep this page protected until the sockpuppet cases have been resolved. You can see them in action here, Talk:Adi Da. I know that as soon as this page loses its protection, Tao and his sockpuppets are going to demolish the page. It would be better if the sockpuppet cases could be resolved, even if that means I'm wrong, whatever, as long as there is some clear resolution. Right now it seems dangerous. Would appreciate your feedback.--Devanagari108 (talk) 23:58, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

accusations that I will demolish the page are absolutely ridiculous. All I am proposing is that the sourced NPOV material be replaced that admitted Adi Da devotee Devanagari removed, while he or his proxies promised it would only be moved. See the talk page there. Why would I demolish the page that I largely wrote, researched, cleaned up, and edited? This is NOT to imply that it is my page however, as evidenced by the many times Dev.108 himself thanked me for my work, and others thanked me for not allowing followers of Adi Da to keep vandalizing the page and removing info (as continues to occur, clearly). This sock puppetry thing is likewise absurd - here I am, still at work, kicking against the pricks.Tao2911 (talk) 18:55, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi Eyeserene. Thank you for attending to this matter. See you around the wiki --Diannaa ^TALK 21:14, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

GA Sweeps Completed!

Thanks to everyone's amazing efforts in February, we have reviewed all of the articles and are now finished with Sweeps! There are still about 30 articles currently on hold, and once those reviews are completed, I will send you a final message about Sweeps process stats including the total number of articles that were passed and failed. If you have one of these open reviews, be sure to update your count when the review is completed so I can compile the stats. You can except to receive your award for reviewing within the next week or two. Although the majority of the editors did not start Sweeps at the beginning in August 2007 (myself included), over 50 editors have all come together to complete a monumental task and improve many articles in the process. I commend you for sticking with this often challenging task and strengthening the integrity of the GA WikiProject as well as the GAs themselves. I invite you to take a break from reviewing (don't want you to burn out!) and then consider returning/starting to review GANs and/or contribute to GAR reviews. With your assistance, we can help bring the backlog down to a manageable level and help inspire more editors to improve articles to higher classes and consider reviewing themselves. Again, thank you for putting up with difficult reviews, unhappy editors, numerous spam messages from me, and taking the time to help with the process, I appreciate your efforts! --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 02:24, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Falx

Thanks for your contributions to article Falx, but could you complete the changes you started to that paragraph in a way that does not leave it self contradictory. Thanks, Gaius Cornelius (talk) 20:42, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Done - apologies for not reading it through more carefully. I can imagine how difficult it must be to write such articles; with the weapon lost in the mists of time it will necessarily be highly speculative, though I find that can be addressed in part by attributing the speculation to a source... assuming anyone has written about it any detail, of course! EyeSerene^talk 21:00, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Nominations for the March 2010 Military history Project Coordinator elections now open!

The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process has started; to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 (UTC) on 8 March 2010! More information on coordinatorship may be found on the coordinator academy course and in the responsibilities section on the coordinator page.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:28, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

SF/ETA

Hi EyeSerene. Thanks for the message. My main concern was that I read SF's latest manifesto and I couldn't actually see what was claimed in the article, in the manifesto itself, so I was concered it may be the random opinion of an editor or something. Then I tried to rationalise why a party which seemingly is quite removed from Iberian Peninsula may include something in its program (I'm currently reading some books about the Spanish Civil War and many republicans from Ireland fought for the communists, while elements associated with what would become Fine Gael fought for the Christian side, so thought this could be ideological motivation). The wording in the article seemed pretty much favourable to terrorist gangs like ETA (under the premise of the "poor darling" Basques, etc). Obviously the Encyclopedia shouldn't take an Anti-Spain stance, even in policy sections of parties. The wording as it is now is alright though. - Yorkshirian (talk) 22:18, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

As for RTG, to be honest, I find it hard to understand what he is trying to say most of the time. Natrually, I'm often called eccentric, but even I find it hard to keep track with RTG. - Yorkshirian (talk) 22:22, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

--AMSCPC (talk) 17:51, 2 March 2010 (UTC)== Ah and an Apology ==

Firstly let me APOLOGISE to the way I may have come across it was not intentionally meant to be an Aggressive or troublesome standpoint.

secondly ...Ah you have an Amiga thats so cool I will try to add as much information as I can to the Amiga section I am very much into Amiga Emulation and am part of one of the Biggest Amiga Emulation sites on the net "BTTR" so if there is anything I can do or add to the Amiga emulation section please just ask as I find it hard to navigate around the site at times. --AMSCPC (talk) 17:51, 2 March 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by AMSCPC (talk • contribs) 15:26, 2 March 2010 (UTC)