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 ;)

Danke

Just found out whats going on behind the scenes - ill try not to screw up lol!

You're welcome :) EyeSerene^talk 11:12, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for adding reviewer/autoreviewer rights to my profile...I saw it on my watchlist at the same time as the MILHIST discussion on pending changes (which I had not previously heard of, despite hanging out in quite a few areas of WP, so thanks for noting it there). I appreciate your unprompted recognition of me as a 'trusted user'. Thanks. Gwinva (talk) 21:55, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Ditto. Didn't even know I had a reputation, much less one so stellar that I could be trusted by you! :D Thanks for bringing it to our attention, I had no idea this was finally getting rolled out. bahamut0013^words_deeds 01:56, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Heh, no problem. I only found out about this yesterday myself - I realise it's just a trial for now and may never go any further, but my main concern was that established editors shouldn't be inconvenienced. If you know anyone that should have their rights updated, please let me know :) EyeSerene^talk 11:26, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

From me too. I had no idea about this until the other night when I found myself granted some new strange power.... Cheers! Ranger Steve (talk) 17:15, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Re: Klis Fortress

Thanks EyeSerene for an explanation. I responded to all editor concerns, but obviously not good enough to get a support for A-class. Since you are objective in this case, can you point what was editors main concern? Copyediting, or something else? Regards, Kebeta (talk) 09:13, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for reply. Kebeta (talk) 08:48, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

British_Expeditionary_Force_(World_War_II)

Hi

I have further expanded the British_Expeditionary_Force_(World_War_II) article and wondered if you had time to give it a going over again if no one else does in the next couple of hours as I want to start on the "Action" section next

thanks

Chaosdruid (talk) 18:24, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

I'll take a look as soon as I get the chance :) EyeSerene^talk 12:31, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Adi Da page

Hi EyeSerene, Hope your exams went well! Tao 2911 AGAIN changed agreed upon wording on controversial paragraph AFTER consensus was reached. Initially with no discussion first. Then later reasoning was given and I agreed and understood.But, other than grammar or punctuation etc it seems important to have discussion about language changes BEFORE it is inserted into article. Things move quickly and without prior discussion these conflicts can happen easily.Would be helpful and slow things down a bit. Really trying to work with opposing views. Sticking with wiki policy and reasoning and I think that there is evidence of that. Is it still wiki policy that changes in an article should be first discussed in in Discussion to achieve consensus? If this is no longer the policy, then how does one counter information put in the article without consensus. If one reverts the language not agreed to by another editor then it can be called "edit waring" So what is the process here? Seems like Tao is just freely editing with no discussion, putting edit and reasoning in at same time. Not a lot I disagree with but when wording is changed discussion should happen first. We are so close and even other pro-Da editor said the same and then... Suggestions. It would be great to bring this aspect of the article to rest. It is close :)Jason Riverdale (talk) 20:04, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Would further page protection help to facilitate discussion? You seem to be coming to some sort of accommodation and it would be a shame to have things go off the rails at this late stage. EyeSerene^talk 11:28, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi EyeSerene, Thanks for the clarification relative to discussion encouraged, but not required for small changes. I have a few cited changes that I will assume "Be Bold" and include in discussion as well. I prefer not to impose a page lock. I think if there are some issues that Tao and I cannot resolve I will request a single issue mediation. Better that way than page lock! Thanks again. Oh, where can I find questions abut aspects of Wikipedia. Is there a place I can simply type in the issue and have it go to the appropriate Wikipedia page?Jason Riverdale (talk) 19:58, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

RfA

Thank you very much for your contribution to my Rfa. I have made a comment about it at User talk:JamesBWatson#Your Request for Adminship which you are, of course, very welcome to read if you wish to. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:42, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Re: Civility Award

Thanks for that, very kind of you! I just thought the chap might want some extra advice on why it was nominated. Do you think we should have a template for that to put on new people's pages? Some kind of 'Here's why it was nominated (policies), don't take it personally, any questions feel free to ask user who posted this or on the MILHIST talkpage'? Skinny87 (talk) 11:15, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Good idea. We do seem to get AfDs regularly popping up at milhist, so something like that might be very useful. EyeSerene^talk 11:53, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

I'll see about putting one together then. Skinny87 (talk) 12:03, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

What do you think about this as a suitable template? A bit rough, of course, and I'll put it to the MILHIST talkpage for discussion, but I'd appreciate your thoughts first. Skinny87 (talk) 09:47, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Looks good :) I've made some tweaks - hope you don't mind and obviously feel free to rv. EyeSerene^talk 11:25, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

No, they're fine, made my writing a bit better! Shall I take this to the MILHIST talkpage now? Skinny87 (talk) 11:52, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't see why not. EyeSerene^talk 12:05, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks!

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		For your hard work on the 'Mystery Rifle' Skinny87 (talk) 09:33, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Return of whitewasher to Adi Da

Hi ES- so far no editing issues, but we have a comment in Talk by a newly created editor profile (one "Norm DeClavier") that sounds eerily similar to a former editor named David Starr, who created a lot of problems on the page in the past. I would ask that you keep a watch on the page, especially noting this editor's activity. We might need to lock the page again.Tao2911 (talk) 14:21, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

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

10:04, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Operation Charnwood

Hi E, unsure of the official route to go down in regards to getting a third party/moderation involved into a discussion. I have asked Nick D to take a nosey at the Operation Charnwood talk page, would it be possible that you too could also look into the current situation with Blablaaa. Regards EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 02:20, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Cheers for the advice and guideance :) EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 11:56, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Verries ridge

In the charnwood Article the damage done on the 12. SS, is describes as "reduced to an infantry Battalion". It is cited there, so i guess the same source could be used on verriers ridge. Blablaaa (talk) 15:47, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

instead of reverting me u should have took 30 second to look the talk page there u see it described. Why do u reverted before u look the discussion page? Blablaaa (talk) 15:53, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I did look at the discussion but your note about 12th SS isn't enough to change the entire infobox (which talks about "3 Panzer Divisions and 1 Infantry Division"). That's the reason I reverted; VR is a featured article and has to maintain close adherence to the sources. I take your point about about 12th SS, but we can only go by what the sources used say. If Copp calls them a division - even if they were only a remnant by that stage - then we must too. They were still on the German ORBAT as a division. The other point is that there simply isn't room in the infobox to go into the type of detail you're suggesting, although obviously if necessary we can in the article itself. EyeSerene^talk 16:04, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Ok clear question by me. On charnwood we explain that the casualties done on the 12 SS were so enourmous that they were reduced to a battalion. But 3 days later they are listed as full panzerdivision? Not even to mention that when a historian names them this not means he claims the were a full panzerdivision. When somebody says these 3 division participated that does Not mean the historian claims 3 full panzerdivisions were active. So i ask clearly , while u know the statement of the battalion, u want the 12 SS as full panzerdivision in the box? Blablaaa (talk) 16:14, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Thats how selectiv editing works. U select the heavies casualties but meanwhile u selceted the hightes strenght numbers ( but number contradict themself so heavily that its only funny but that doesnt madder, right ? )Blablaaa (talk) 16:16, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I want to highlight when copp calls them a division and another historian calls them a infantry battalion u automaticly choose copp while u know that copp is far away from truth. But that doesnt madder u choose copp Blablaaa (talk) 16:18, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Can u please give your opinion. U want the 12SS as full panzerdivision in the infobox ( in the strenght sectin ) while on the featured article charnwood it is claimed they were reduced to battalion size ( its cited ) . Copp doesnt even claim they were a full division anylonger but u want this in the box despite the knowledge about the statement of the charnwood article . MAybe u forgot so i remember u that in the strenght section the word division acts as a equivalent for strenghth . So please can u give a clear opinion regarding this issue? Blablaaa (talk) 21:46, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

dodging the question ? Blablaaa (talk) 12:53, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Charnwood

After i saw your comment regarding charnwood. I want ask u a question. Do u think the fact the german division had "heavy" ( far lower than german ) casualties and charnwood is described as victory , means the german casualties were the reason for calling it a "tactical victory" ? Can u please answer instead of using your "ignorjoker" ? Blablaaa (talk) 15:56, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I can only repeat what the others have already said to you. You seem to be ignoring the whole quote, which says "With northern Caen's capture and the heavy casualties inflicted on the two German divisions defending the immediate sector, Operation Charnwood was a tactical success." In other words, it was a tactical success because of: 1. The capture of northern Caen, and 2. the heavy casualties inflicted on the Germans. That the Allies also took heavy casualties - more than the Germans - simply means they paid a high price for their tactical victory. EyeSerene^talk 16:09, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

ok thanks for that. u said u think the casualties done on the german were a reason for the tactical victory. no historian claimed this. same like enigma u done OR . no historian claimed this because it contractids the general understanding of tactical victory. where is the quote of any historian supporting the statement that it was a tactical victory because of german casualties. where does any historian say this i will never get a answer for this. Simple OR of people with limited knowledge of warfare. No historian claimed this because its uncommon and wrong Blablaaa (talk) 16:21, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Totally irrlevant what the whole statement says i talk about the correlation which is part of the statement. I want a quote for that. Or do u think putting something wrong in a statement with somethin true makes the statement true? I hope to met somebody with scientific standarts here.... Blablaaa (talk) 16:24, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Parceyboy got the facts presented without the background and he said the only logic thing: saying NO. Whats now ? mabye u finally give me a quote for the statement ?Blablaaa (talk) 16:29, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

i quote parcey now: "If the author does not specifically make that claim, then unequivocally no" . So please give me the quote of any historian who claims this correlation. Blablaaa (talk) 16:32, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

lacking knowledge

After some months at wiki i recognized that even editors with much edits sometimes seem to be very unskilled at their choosen topic. Here can u read what a tactical victory means , i hope u will read the short article that u finally understand what u talk about. Blablaaa (talk) 21:33, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome

Obviously you need to buy your own to appreciate it fully.

Whilst remaining neutral, I couldn't help but think "of all the people to think that of" (see above). Doubt you're enjoying that thread to be honest, hope this helps (metaphorically). Ranger Steve (talk) 11:57, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

No probs. Couldn't resist the Masnieres comment I'm afraid! Ranger Steve (talk) 13:20, 29 June 2010 (UTC)