User talk:EyeTruth

My Talkpage Archives

Hello, feel free to use the plenty space below :D

Battle of Prokhorovka GAC

I just read the nice note you left on my talkpg re. my nominating Battle of Prokhorovka for GA-status review. I'm glad to hear that in doing so, I indirectly and unintentionally provided a catalyst for further progress in your own work! My opinions are subjective, of course, but in reading that article, I absolutely believed that there exists the foundations of a "Good Article" and that status should be obtainable without undue effort going forward. I leave it to other more technically-competent editors/reviewers to confirm that the format of all of the citations is consistent and correct, for example, but don't feel any hesitation to say that you and your fellow editors have developed a much-improved article that certainly merits recognition, further investment and the attention of other readers and contributors. Good luck! I hope someone picks-up the review promptly! Az x2 18:00, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the kind, motivating words. The article wouldn't be what it is now if not for the framework laid down by other editors long before my reworking, and the major cleanups by over a dozen editors afterwards. Unfortunately, I will soon be getting very busy outside Wikipedia but I will try and drop by every now and then, perhaps a few minutes every evening, if the GAC review starts. EyeTruth (talk) 19:19, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just got a notice on my tp from Sturmvogel 66 that the review has begun! Az x2 17:55, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Seperate " was Kursk a blitzkrieg" section?

Hi I am thinking this may be an option if things still remain unstable after the present vote. It would have the advantage of coralling all the arguments into a seperate space and would thus neutralise the Blitzkrieg term being used in mainspace. I think it actually justifies its own section. The argument becomes more interesting as I personally think on it. Oddly I have never thought of this aspect of Kursk in those terms before. I think we have enough material for a good section, and it would add to article quality and head off future pain. I have informed GBD, and updated him on options. I think it is only fair, and so this can be finally, comprehensively resolved by all parties. Cheers! Irondome (talk) 00:23, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Irondome, I think that is a great idea and I suggested this to GDB before, but the guy refused, so right now I'm not planning on dragging this out after this vote. I'm trying to bring this 3 month old drama (which didn't deserve to last more than 2 weeks) to an end and not drag it on any further. EyeTruth (talk) 01:06, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, is it okay if I collapse the other poll so that other editors coming to vote won't get confused and run from long discussion? I've had one editor tell me before that "it looks too time consuming" to comment on which version they support, it was not for this poll but for the older section. EyeTruth (talk) 01:21, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It was a big feint to get things moving. Collapse already. Cheers! Irondome (talk) 01:28, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]