User:EyeSerene/Archive8

Odwalla PR

Hi. I've worked like crazy on Odwalla, and I think I've addressed your comments, and I was wondering if you'd answer a few of my questions that I've left on the peer review page. Once again, thank you so much for your constructive criticism. Intothewoods29 (talk) 02:58, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Roman Incident

I am writing to tell you that I am very distrubed by your handling of the Roman incident

GroundZero and Alexnia were both in the wrong and you have compounded their wrong doings with your interaction. I had a chance to read their interaction before you censored it and the IP poster was asking legit questions. None of which has been answered.

What is even worse is that you basically told that person they will take Alexnia's apology and shut up - that is not in the spirit of what Wiki is about.

I used to be a wiki editor and was even nominated for admin, but incidents like this made me decide to leave. By that I mean the actions of the admins in this incident not the poster. I accept that people make mistakes and in some ways it appears Alexnia did, until you read his post on GroundZero's page and when you read his comments on his own page which you deleted without comment.

Alexnia swore at the poster and insulted him and you think he is going to be happy with the outcome and Alexnia's apology which might not even been sincere? Do you think he is going to be anymore happy with your censoring his comments? I would be outraged!

In fact I was so bothered by it I felt compelled to create a new account just to get it off my chest. I suspect you will just ban my account and censor me as well but if you do hopefully the poster will see it before you do

BTW what is the obession with demanding people sign post? You and all the other admins seem to be doing it now and its hardly relevant. If someone signs should always be their choice not a demand, authors have always felt that to be a personal decision

TruthWay (talk) 17:18, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

A kind reply!

Dear EyeSerene,

I esteem your understanding to a nicety and will strongly follow to abide by what you mean. As far as my editing is concerned, this is just to revamp the articles as most of them have been found lying in a spottier, ambivalent condition and being an editor at WIKIPEDIA, it obviously comes into my understanding to reorganize them with necessary changes and nothing else.

Anyway, thanks for the piece of advice you serve before me and your all claims and other messages will be warmly entertained! Regards --Vikaszt (talk) 12:09, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

A big thanks !!!

thanks for replying on the Roman A issue. I can't believe how a few Huggle edits can cause such a trouble. I hope this incident will be forgotten by next week. Alexnia (talk) 18:12, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Stop inflaming it and it will blow over. The huggle edits are not the issue and haven't been from the start and you know it

The mishandling of the situation by the admins and their flippant attitude toward disrecpecting others is and always was the issue - you have show your character to be good, even though you still belittle the situation and behave in the same flippant style, the other admin can not say the same (again not you EyeSerene) TruthWay (talk) 14:22, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

A request

EyeSerene, I would like you opinion about TruthWay's comments here and elsewhere about how I have handled the Roman Abramovich situation. If you think that my behaviour has been inappropriate for an administrator, I would like to know. Thank you. Ground Zero | t 15:47, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Good idea however I belive you should choose an admin that has not been involved before now, and an impartial admin who is not from the UK or of British heritage. Then there would stand to be a more fair result

Of course even with those criteria met it will be difficult for an impartial to see your the reason for you been alleged of attacking others, but the commnets on the Roman page definitely violate the Personal Attacks guideline TruthWay (talk) 16:29, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks very much for your comments, EyeSerene. Wile I felt I was on the right track, it is useful to have a second opinion as a check. Thank you for taking the time. Regards, Ground Zero | t 10:28, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

A favor

Hey, I was wondering if you'd be open to briefly copyediting the article Panzer IV—basically, just glaring errors in the prose (as it will be picked apart during the FAC, regardless). Anything you could do would be much appreciated, if you can do it or want to do it. Thank you, regardless. JonCatalán (talk) 11:03, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you! JonCatalán (talk) 16:15, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Hey, like my other articles, I want to put it through a FAC. Given the work you've put into it (quite a bit, including even more information), would you like to co-nominate it? JonCatalán (talk) 18:14, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

In regards to Italy, the only information I've been able to find so far specific to German tanks is that it was an "infantry war" and that German tanks were hampered by allied artillery and aircraft. I guess I'll add this under "Western Front", but I'll continue looking. I believe I have an article published in a magazine on the German Ferdinand, and it deals with its history in Italy and perhaps it has some information on German tanks in Italy, in general. JonCatalán (talk) 20:56, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I was wondering

If you could help me put trivia back into the topics on comic books and wrestling at least movies if not those Supermike/Supermike —Preceding unsigned comment added by Supermike (talk • contribs) 11:47, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

A Example

Look at WWE WrestleMania so far the World title has change hands at every PPV escape WM19 something like that for a source just go to WWE.com and look at the history Supermike (talk • contribs) 11:47, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

FA

Hi, do you know what is the procedure for a featured article to appear on the main page? Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 10:24, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

copyedit request

Hey, EyeSerene, would you be able to perform a copyedit of 2nd Canadian Infantry Division after it finishes its ACR? (which is looking inconclusive at the moment). I'd prefer to have a full prose copyedit before going for FAC this fall. Regards, Cam (Chat) 21:23, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

On another note, you wouldn't happen to have the maps for Operation Tractable done yet, would you? Other than that, the article is ready to go for FAC, so I'm just waiting on the maps. Cam (Chat) 00:47, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Excellent work once again! This will come in handy. Cam (Chat) 22:37, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Harry Murray

Hi EyeSerene, I was wondering if you would be able copyedit the article Harry Murray for me? I have been working on the article for the last few weeks, and it passed GAN with absolutely no problems at all so I had it reviewed for A-Class, which it also passed with no problems. I now plan to nominate it for FA, but would like an extra expert opinion before I do so. As usual, if you're too busy or do not wish to then please do not feel obligated to do so. Thanks either way, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 10:53, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

P.s. Maybe one day you can return to your work on Military simulation and achieve the GA status you wish on the article. Kind regards, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 10:53, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

That's okay; just whenever you're able to do it is fine. I've already had Blnguyen do a good job copyediting it, but thought I would just get a quick once over by another good copyeditor. Thanks EyeSerene, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 06:01, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you EyeSerene! Yes, Roger and Blnguyen (now known as YellowMonkey) did do a very good job copyediting it. Now off to FA! Thanks mate, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 02:12, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Harry Murray has now been passed as a Featured Article! Thank you so very much for your contributions and support towards helping to promote the article, EyeSerene! Sincerely thanking you, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 04:29, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Nominations for the Military history WikiProject coordinator election

The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process is starting. We are aiming to elect nine coordinators to serve for the next six months; if you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 (UTC) on September 14!
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:08, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXX (August 2008)

The August 2008 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) 23:02, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Motto of the day

Hello, I notice you're using one of the {{motd}} templates, run by Wikipedia:Motto of the day. You may have noticed that some of the mottos recently have been followed by a date from 2006, or on occasion simply "Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia". The reason for this is that Motto of the day is in some very serious need of help. Participation in the project, which has never been especially high, has dropped considerably over this past summer, to the point we have had several days where no motto was scheduled to appear at all. Over the past several weeks, I've been the only editor scheduling mottos at all, but there aren't enough comments on some of these mottos to justify their use. If we do not get some help - and soon - your daily mottos will stop. In order for us to continue updating these templates for you, we need your help.

When you get a chance between your normal editing, could you stop by our nominations page and leave a few comments on some of the mottos there, especially those that do not have any comments yet? This works very simply; you read a motto, decide whether or not you like it, and post your opinion just below the motto. That's it - no experience required, just an idea of what you personally like and what you feel reflects Wikipedia and its community. If you do have past experience with the project, then please close some of the older nominations once they've got a decent consensus going. There are directions on the nominations page on how to do this.

If you have any questions, please let me know, or post on the project's talk page. I'm looking forward to reading your comments on the suggested mottos, and any additional suggestions you'd like to make. Until then, happy editing! Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 02:55, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Block on User_talk:Deepaksubramaniyan

Hi there. I don't know if you'd like to see some editor butting into your actions, so please apologize me in case this message annoys you. I just noticed the vandalism (blanking) that was being resorted by the above user. While I was attempting to revert this vandalism, others beat me to it. When I noticed that you had blocked this user indefinitely, I felt that for a first time offender, indefinite block is probably a bit too harsh on the user. Maybe a short block with a few pointers on what is expected of the user with a welcome template for problematic users might be useful. Just thought that I could share my thoughts with you. Sincerely, Mspraveen (talk) 08:30, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I was quite a pleasure to see your detailed reply. Thanks for sharing your perspective on the block. IMO, until you clarified, an indefinite block meant forever to me. But thanks for the information. I've left a welcome note + my thoughts about the user's actions on the talk page. If the user were a genuinely interested editor in improving the pedia, then he/she will contest the block with good reasons. Btw, it is nice to meet a friendly admin :) Mspraveen (talk) 09:37, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Wow. That came from nowhere. Yes, the pedia has a long way to go and we need as many editors as possible. For the above users contributions, I saw some promise if he were to mend his ways. Anyways, chuck it. Thanks for the barnie..I appreciate your kind gesture. Hope to bump into you sometime in the near future. Mspraveen (talk) 14:12, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Simulation123

Hi,

You sent me the following message:

Please stop. If you continue to add promotional material to Wikipedia, you will be blocked from editing. EyeSerenetalk 12:11, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Simulation123simulation123"

Am I receiving this based on my username? Are my contributions being deleted based on the same? I'm unsure as to what you mean by promotional material. Everything I've posted has been deleted. Don't worry, I don't intend on contributing to Wikipedia in the future, I seem to be blacklisted.

Simulation123simulation123 (talk) 12:29, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Ok thank you for the information, I just got a bit frustrated there to see information I wrote disappearing before my eyes!

Hi, thanks very much again for all the information you've provided to me, I really appreciate it. The article is being edited by another username, but I understand that it may be deleted again, it takes time to find proper sources, although there is more than there was. This username can be deleted now, thanks again. Simulation123simulation123 (talk) 04:22, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I have edited the simulation123 section under this username, does the section have to be deleted and recreated under this username? thanks Anima007 (talk) 04:25, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Monty etc (posted by Keith-264)

I enjoyed the Monty digression so if you're interested, I'm interested in the subtext of industrial war at the moment, the inevitability of mass casualties and the political consequences of this, past and present. That's what you get for reading up on Falkenhayn! I also have a bit of a bee in my bonnet about Operation Epsom (the attack that broke the German defence but looks like it didn't unless you're an attrition aficionado) and that the Valentine was the best British tank of the war.Keith-264 (talk) 20:53, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Apparently the travesty concocted by the Germans after WWI to explain away the defeat was deep rooted, hence it lasting so long. The Schlieffen plan was rather like Ike and Monty's Normandy wheeze - sold as a quick fix but with the (private) caveat that it probably wouldn't be. The invasion of France apparently had a certain aim - to deprive France of important frontier economic resources - Longwy-Briey, the industry and coal around Lille and Belgium. Fighting the war outside Germany was also a prime aim. The thread in German strategic thinking called bewegungskrieg ('war of movement') was maintained but only as a hope rather than being believed in as a certainty. By capturing French-Belgian resources, leaving Holland so that as a neutral it could import through the British blockade (and not declaring war on Italy when Italy declared war on Austria-Hungary so that Germany could keep trading with italy) Germany would bolster its ability to fight a long war, regarded by some like Moltke the Elder and Delbruck as more than likely after the French kept the war of 1870 going despite Sedan. This was the dreaded 'ermattungskrieg' or 'war of exhaustion' in which germany would be at a disadvantage. This is apparently why after WWI German historians unfairly blamed Moltke the Younger for feebleness - shoot the messenger, not the realistic and knowing courting of the long, bloody war that supposedly took everyone except Kitchener by 'surprise'. Looked at like this, Germany got the 1914 that its leaders expected but hoped to avoid.

Falkenhayn's strategy makes much more sense in this context - acute German awareness of weakness in the face of the Entente's population, economies and monopoly of non-European resources and the wasting assets of higher prewar mobilisation and military skill in the German army. Falky was adamant that Germany couldn't spare the men needed to finish off the French and that the Austro-Hungarians would collapse without immediate support but that the Russians could retreat indefinitely to avoid defeat. Thus he came up with the plan to inflict a huge operational defeat on the Russians then offer them an easy way out of the war. This worked as far as the military strategy went, the Gorlice-Tarnow offensive foreshadowed the '100 Days' of 1918 but the Russians wouldn't give up on the war. With the Russian army apparently incapable of offensive action and pushed back to a line that even the moribund A-H army could hold Falky tried again at Verdun - using firepower as a substitute for the manpower that Germany lacked and to force the French to mount a forward defence because they couldn't retreat and hand over Verdun. This worked up to a point but not as well as against Russia because the Germans never captured the Meuse Heights so had to reduce the French with infantry attacks rather than artillery defence. The expected hurried British relief offensive didn't materialise either, instead Falky got the Somme where the German army was pulverised. The Entente had turned the tables and the German attempt to defeat them in detail failed. It was strategically downhill from then on for Germany and Hindenburg-Ludendorff's tenure only made this explicit.

Something similar to Moltke's scapegoating occurred in Britain in 1940 - the 'Guilty Men' ate appeasement's sins (supported by the vast majority of Britons at the time) rather like the people purged in Russia in the late 30's, though of course with a softer landing. For much of the early war period the wartime regime could excuse its failures by blaming the Baldwin and Chamberlain regimes and overlooking their military and economic rearmament, which kept Britain in the war after Dunkirk until the USA established its protectorate.

This is why I must be in the generally 'pro-Monty' camp re: Normandy, because I think he succeeded where Falkenhayn failed, in forcing the enemy into 'ermattungskrieg' with the (as it turned out) realistic belief that he could inflict attrition on the Germans at a time and place of his choosing, at a relatively cheap cost in Allied lives (bearing in mind that this was still a prodigiously bloody enterprise). I don't think that a war of mannoeuvre was possible except against a much weaker enemy (such as at Blackadder's battle of M'Boto Gorge) and that where it was tried; N Africa, the Balkans, Russia etc, it obtained operational success and strategic disaster. In the Wiki debate that is implicit in the Normandy pages I seem to be in a minority in thinking that a breakthrough with low casualties could only be obtained the way that Monty fought the campaign. Where others see feeble British attacks quickly contained, if not repulsed, I'm tending to see a version of Gorlice-Tarnow or the 100 Days writ small. The neutralising effect of mass firepower was exploited to gain ground and consolidate so as to destroy German counter-attacks and then the attack was resumed somewhere else. A slow but sure process of turning the German defenders into a remnant. That's why I think EPSOM may have been his finest hour, where he did it his way and saw it succeed. Two SS Pz Kps were repulsed by ordinary British squaddies - not bad those men! Keith-264 (talk) 18:11, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I’ve been looking at D’Este and although he goes into a lot of detail his analysis of Monty’s ‘Master Plan’ seems to get confused. On the one hand he says that Monty never mentioned Caen as a hinge or pivot, on the other that the Germans were expected to withdraw their left flank to the Seine arriving at the same time as the right flank which implies a pivot somewhere at the east end of the defensive line. I have the feeling that D’Este wanted to discount Caen in favour of somewhere further south without admitting that this would mean that the ‘Master Plan’ took place except further north than expected. He also seems to imply that there was to be an eastern breakout but that this was to be a short advance to the area around Falaise rather than a definitive advance out of Normandy. I would have thought that the main deviations from Monty’s predictions were the fight closer to the coast than expected and the short envelopment, which were consequences of Hitler’s insistence (rightly I think) that the German army couldn’t hope to win anywhere else in France. He knew in far more detail than his Generals how the chronic fuel shortage, loss of air supremacy and lack of equipment and manpower constrained the Western Army. Note also that in Russia and Italy Germany hadn’t fought a mobile defence since Kharkov in early 1943. River and hill lines had been the areas where the Eastern and Italian armies had stood their ground. This makes Hitler’s ‘no retreat’ mentality comprehensible – a defence could only be made at another big geographical obstacle. There weren’t all that many between Kursk and Berlin.

I suspect that since the main market for a book in English is America, publishers don’t want a clear endorsement of Monty or the British since this is considered to make a book less profitable. Perhaps this makes writers pull their punches. Lloyd Clark’s ‘Operation Epsom’ sits on the highest fence in Normandy. I had hoped that academic monographs might be enlightening but there aren’t that many that go into much operational detail. ‘Operation Epsom’ by I. Daglish seems pretty sound on the operation but he can’t help making a few swipes at Monty. His comments outside the detail of the offensive are unconvincing (on the Battle of the Somme especially) and smack of a suitably subaltern disdain for the senior management.

I wonder if Monty never really lost his subaltern disdain which would help explain his reluctance to go into detail over his plans to pulverise the Germans at short range. No doubt he was also well aware of Churchill’s paranoia over high losses and the inability of Britain to replace extravagant losses. Between them though Monty and Eisenhower kept Churchill at arm’s length for much longer than they would have had to if the Germans had abandoned Normandy after Epsom, which purely military logic would have dictated. By fighting so far forward Hitler forced the battle to be fought on good defensive terrain but also at a great distance from Germany; rather like Alamein and Stalingrad in fact. It also meant that the longer it went on the more comprehensive would be the defeat.

A few years ago I was keen on the technological explanation of Allied ‘slowness’ but Buckley cured me of that by pointing out that the main inferiority of Allied tanks was in anti-tank firepower which was only important as it because of the Germans fighting it out in Normandy. 30% of the German tank fleet was indubitably superior to Allied tanks but the rest were decidedly ordinary. ORS2 said that with the firepower of anti-armour weapons in 1944 an invulnerable tank was impossible and any extra weight on Allied tanks ought to be from a more powerful gun. In a bizarre twist of fate the Firefly and 17pdr M10 had already come into service as had the APDS round. The British army doesn’t get much credit for its foresight though.

All in all, the Germans inflicted heavy losses on infantry and substantial tank losses on the Allies at sacrificial cost to themselves. I think that Monty consciously applied the strategy than Falkenhayn used in Russia in 1915 and France in 1916 which was to use superior firepower as a battering ram. Considering that the dramatic armoured breakthroughs of WWII usually ended in strategic calamity for the attacker (whatever the operational success) I think he was right. Inevitably though this would put the frighteners on the politicians because of the losses of WWI had a high political cost, hence Monty soft pedalling attrition. It’s odd though, because if you look at the structure of the 2nd Army it was designed as a sledgehammer rather than a rapier. You’d have thought the suits would have noticed.

I have to admit that although I could make a case for the Valentine as the best tank in the circumstances when and where is was used, the real reason I like it best is that it looks like a pocket KV1. Keith-264 (talk) 11:50, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Descent from antiquity

Requesting you renew semiprotection on Descent from antiquity since IP user 65.78.186.234 persistently slaps the AfD template on it without attempting to make any case for deletion, despite repeated pointers from yourself and me on how to do it.

I assume that this user is the same as the last anonymous IP pest whose activities led to semiprotection. That lasted for 3 weeks and evidently was no long enough.

--Chris Bennett (talk) 23:42, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

!!Wawawiwa!!

I'd be concered that !!Wawawiwa!! could be sockpuppet to: User:Darude101 who needs blocking please, please also consider protecting my userpage, thanks Theterribletwins1111 (talk) 11:35, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for your note about someone saying things about User:903M's userpage on AN/I. People seem to think recently that they can go to AN/I first to test the waters. As it can create such hastle for people, AN/I should be a last resort IMHO:) However I realise the problems with the userbox etc.Sticky Parkin 22:10, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Chadwick

Thanks for picking up Henry Chadwick for GA review, he's been languishing for rather a while. Just a quick note to say that I'll be offline from Thursday to Sunday, so won't be able to respond review comments during that time - I don't think anyone is really watching the article either. David Underdown (talk) 12:47, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I've made some changes to the article, and responded to some of your review points. Thanks for your time. David Underdown (talk) 23:30, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

O F Hunziker

EyeSerene, thank you very much for the comments at the article's talk page. You indicate on the GA talk page that you "hate" to reassess the article's GA status. Although I understand the desire for stability, I am very glad to have the additional review and would prefer to have the article as strong and consistent as possible . . . so I sincerely appreciate your comments.

• I have substantially expanded the lead section. Please let me know if you think the expansion meets the goal of WP:LEAD.
• Regarding "Family and early life" and "Family life" sections, I agree that the title similarity is confusing and renamed the first as "Early years" and retained the roughly chronological nature of the biography. Only after considering your comment did I find the Biography template which suggest a similar approach. That is a little different from your suggestion, so please let me know if you don't think this works.
• Finally, I added a cite and restructured several existing cites to try to address assertions. I would gladly welcome any further guidance you could provide on that issue.
• Based on your comments on the GA talk page, should I change the GA template to read topic="everydaylife" (or is that a task performed by an independent reviewer)? Does anything on article's discussion page reflect the subcategories "Food and drink" or "Personalities"?
• Should I inform the original GA reviewer, Ning ning, about the re-assessment?

Any other comments you might have would be appreciated.--Rpclod (talk) 14:10, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I am unsure where to respond to your most recent comments at my talk page, so I left my response there. Is there a way of using talk pages such that the recipient receives notice of comments? Leaving responding messages on each others talk pages does not seem to leave a thread for later reference.--Rpclod (talk) 20:21, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

EyeSerene, thank you very much for going beyond the call of duty by reviewing the O F Hunziker article when I asked about GA category issues. While I greatly appreciate your editorial review and comments, I also appreciate your oversight of the GA categories and prompt response to inquiries. Accordingly, assuming it is ok for me to do so and in addition to my sincere thanks for help with the Hunziker article, I would like to give you

		The Categorisation Barnstar
		Thanks for your work on GA categories & with Prof. Hunziker's article.

I hope that is ok. Thanks also to Ning ning and the other editors. This is a fascinating process and I am glad to see the checks and balances that create Wikipedia integrity.--Rpclod (talk) 20:27, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the beer and the good luck, come monday I'll need both. It's due in four days and that should be the end of my education (and hopefully some more letters after my name). The reason for the high edit count is that I have taken a couple of weeks off work to finish the damn thing and as a result actually have more free time than usual. Haven't taken on any big wikiprojects this summer though because I can't afford to get too caught up in this. Got a few in mind when I come back properly. All the best, --Jackyd101 (talk) 16:14, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Its all in, so hopefully I'm sorted thanks. Unfortunately, as always happens, my body was waiting for the work to be completed before subjecting me to a torrent of illness, so my functionality for the last week has been extremely low. Hopefully it will have cleared up soon. All the best--Jackyd101 (talk) 16:11, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Courtney Peldon

Please, can you solve this dispute on Courtney Peldon, proving the same chriteria you've mentioned to me before? Thanks a lot! All the best. G.-M. Cupertino (talk) 17:59, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Military history WikiProject coordinator election

The September 2008 Military history WikiProject coordinator election has begun. We will be selecting nine coordinators to serve for the next six months from a pool of fourteen candidates. Please vote here by September 30!
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:57, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Operation Epsom

Hi EyeSerene, this article is currently under an A-class review and it seems it needs some copy-editing and prose checking. Roger Davies recommended you as one of the persons which might help us solve this problems. Would it be possible for you to have a look on this article? Thanks and best regards, --Eurocopter (talk) 20:51, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Ah! Eurocopter beat me to it. Cam (Chat) 03:35, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

EyeSerene-san!

Ack! I didn't even see your message on my talk page! Thanks for the nudge, ES. I've been really busy lately, so I hadn't had much time to edit in the past few weeks. I'll try to fit more time in the schedule as much as practical. At any rate, I didn't get to the PR at all during my absence (and now that you mention it, it's probably been more than two weeks so I'd better remove it if it hasn't been already), so I'll have to deal with those issues before I even think about nominating it. However, other than that it looks great, so let me know when you think we should go for it! Apologetically, —Mizu onna sango15^Hello! 20:55, 20 September 2008 (UTC).

Thanks for the PR!

		The Reviewers Award
		I just wanted to say thank you for your peer review of Odwalla, which just recently passed FAC! Thanks also for your support at WP:FAT! Intothewoods29 (talk) 05:54, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Please, explain

Based on [1] and yours

For now, I've fully-protected Jasenovac i Gradiska Stara, Ante Starcevic, Petar Brzica, Ljubo Miloš and Magnum Crimen for one month, all on the wrong version. I'm sorry I can't help with checkuser, but hopefully it'll give us all a break. It seems that there's always some childish POV edit-war going on around these subjects, and I have a huge sympathy and respect for those neutral, uninvolved editors who work in these areas. Regards, EyeSerenetalk 11:46, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

please, explain what exactly you are protecting here and why? What is the 'childish POV edit-war' here? For each article counted above explain on its talk page what is 'childish POV' there. Support it by valid knowledge of each subject.--Don Luca Brazzi (talk) 17:41, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

• I reject any 'uninvolved administrator I'm entitled to take whatever measures I feel' as extremely uncivil and against the very letter of Wikipedia -you are capable and entitled to take the right measures based only on the full understanding of the problem you are trying to resolve. The full understanding will help you to get the evidence/disruption you are talking about. So, if you do not have a valid knowledge of each subject - you could only do damage to this cause - as you've already done. Let me go back to the very nature of the problem I've reported - based on the evidence seen in a single article. User Rjecina claimed that the full text of the 'Jasenovac i Gradiska Stara' lyrics cannot be in the same article - for being copyrighted by Thompson, see [2] without giving any valid evidence. The truth is - Thompson even keeps denying that he ever sang this song. After my warning that the lyrics not copyrighted - Rjecina offers another nonsense - to justifying the lyrics removal - see [3] where he makes pointless reference to the 'Lilly Marlen'. Here [4] is just another 'justification' of the same type where he says: 'Song is from 1942 so we are having copyright problem (US copyright laws).' The truth is - this song is a mix of verses coming from the WWII times and verses referring to some recent events (1990ties). Moreover, this song is full of hate and primitive racist slurs - which no man of sound mind might ever try to copyright.

• So, please answer my questions posted in my previous message.--Don Luca Brazzi (talk) 18:45, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Question re search popups

Excuse me eye but do you know how to turn of "pop-up autotext in the search field"? Keith-264 (talk) 21:26, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Ah, that's it, many thanks! Keith-264 (talk) 11:08, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

RE: 2nd Division

no biggie. Thanks for your help with copyediting. Cam (Chat) 23:28, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Hey, I don't intend to get aggravated at you for putting in the Fact Tags. It's in the copyedit job description. I'll fix the tags tomorrow (there are days when I hate having to go through my bookcases to find the damn books). Regards, Cam (Chat) 05:50, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Copyedit request

Hi EyeSerene, I hope you don't mind if I bug you for another copyedit request? I've been working on Blair Anderson Wark for the last couple of weeks, and following a copyedit by YellowMonkey it was passed as GA and then A-class by Milhist with relative ease. Since the A-class review, I have been mulling over whether to nominate it for Featured. If it isn't too much trouble, I was hoping you would be able to preform a copyedit on the article yourself, and provide me with your thoughts on whether you do think it could pass FAC or not? If you're too busy or it's too much trouble, then please do not feel obligated to do so. Thanks either way mate, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 09:34, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks mate! I don't mind if it takes awhile; I'm in no hurry. As they say, good work takes time. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 09:43, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Pier Gerlofs Donia

Care to review the article for GA? Last king of Frisia (talk) 08:51, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

The Holocaust template

The {{The Holocaust}} template has been the subject of edit-warring over the inclusion of certain extermination camps, and in particular the inclusion of the Jasenovac concentration camp. User:Don Luca Brazzi is taking the position that there is no need to follow WP:Consensus because nobody else understands the historical facts as well as he does. My attempts on his talk page to suggest means by which he could achieve consensus did not go over very well (he deleted all of my messages on the basis that they were "offensive"). I see that you have been involved in related issues -- any suggestions to help put a stop to the edit-warring over the template? Skeezix1000 (talk) 12:03, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate you taking the time to respond. To be honest, however, it wasn't that helpful. It's a little bit off-putting to be scolded for not attempting to discuss the issue, when I did try to do so ([5], [6], [7] and [8]). I'm also not quite sure how the references you made to WP:BRD are relevant, as I am not interested in achieving any desired changes to the template. There have been repeated attempts to insert material into the template, to which other editors have objected, and in turn the first editor was persisting. I was simply trying to make sure that that editor who was trying to add the material respected the policy at WP:CON and followed the process at WP:BRD. I don't actually have any opinions as to the appropriateness of the disputed content -- I was simply trying to be a neutral third party looking to help stop the constant battles over this template. I tried to get other editors interested in the issue, and when the editor looking to insert the material indicated that he was not bound by WP:CON, I sought further assistance (my note to you). However, if I am going to be perceived as edit warring myself, it's obvious that I should just wash my hands of the issue entirely. Life's too short. I will take your comments to heart if I ever encounter a similar issue down the road. I tried to help - it didn't work out. I hope you have more success that I did. Skeezix1000 (talk) 12:58, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

That was a very nice message that you left, and I do appreciate you taking the time to explain your views on the matter. You are absolutely right that I could have approached the matter differently, and your advice is well taken. Thanks for the input, and I apologize for having misconstrued your initial message. Skeezix1000 (talk) 17:54, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

thank you

		Milhist Coordinator elections
		Thank you very much for your much appreciated support in the recently concluded September 2008 Military History Wikiproject Coordinator Elections. I was thoroughly surprised to walk away with a position of Coordinator. Thank-you for your support, and I assure you that I will do my best to serve this spectacular project well. Esteemed Regards, Cam (Chat) 01:04, 1 October 2008 (UTC) Notre Dame de Lorrette Cemetary - Arras, France

Thanks for your help, and no worries on the ce. I'm glad to hear that the second map is almost complete (when it's done, I think Tractable will be ready for FAC). All the best, Cam (Chat) 22:29, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank-you! That will work perfectly! Tractable is now at FAC; you might want to give the prose a quick look. I've been tightening it over the last two days, but I'm sure I still missed something. Cam (Chat) 18:33, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

No worries. I don't think images are a huge issue this time. Ironically enough, neither is prose;) All the best, Cam (Chat) 22:51, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Just as an update - Operation Tractable just passed its FAC. Thanks for all of your help, both with images and general copyediting (way back in June) throughout the process. I found this one to be a lot less intense than the last one, and I think some of your excellent prose abilities rubbed off on me (no prose issues at all in this one;). Cam ^(Chat) 07:08, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Re: Help

Dear Eyesrene,

Our some questions...

What do you suggest, how any further?

Is it enough information on Internet about axone's to wikipedia environments? Example: pictures, photo's, links, references, discography, music, video or other descriptions...?

Is some sort of staring one in the face solution on their keeping his the registers? Do they deserve indeed help and the presence on Wikipedia? Have you got reason, how do you see it?

Which link, music, video, photo or pictures, any web contents... may it insert here his official website and where?

...his official page a fund or goldmine:-) we according to everything there finding this on page.

Which your contents suggestion his official website?

web prompt/memo: axone.tvn.hu

Which information do you deem about them, worthwhile?

Please write your that here, because we are copying it there page of (Axone's) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sponsorations (talk • contribs) 23:00, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I commend you on your patience in trying to explain to this user the deficiencies of the article in question. I have to admit, though, the recent userpage rants made me chuckle..."This is mastercool hoggish plaza of truth or reality!!!" — Scientizzle 22:42, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Magnum Crimen protection

While I don't think it will do anything to stop the edit war (as one of the main editors has stopped editing completely and refused to talk even before that), but I don't see anything gained with the protection remaining. As one admin to another, reviewing the talk page, do you think it would be appropriate for me to go tight-fisted on everyone, protect the page, remove everything unsourced, and force people to discuss on talk first, inserting things that are actually from reliable sources? Or am I too involved for it to be fair? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:25, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Jasenovac

If you are not having enough problems with Template:The Holocaust can you please enter discussion about this ? Must of Croatia related "disputes" (for me this is POV pushing by 2 banned users) will end if few administrators will create quotations policy (for Croatian WWII articles) and then enforce this policy.--Rjecina (talk) 15:43, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

EyeSerene, note that I have asked Rjecina before not to simply accuse everyone who disagrees of being a banned user. Rjecina's current issues are largely with the same users and seems to be following the same pattern. User:Mangojuice and I gave warnings a few weeks ago after a series of checkusers were requested for no reason than to harass everyone else (see this WP:ANI section). Personally, my patience for this type of conduct is gone but I'll leave it to you. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:18, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Assistance needed

I need you to explain as an Administrator to an editor on Rachelle Lefèvre's page why links to years in film and television are not being deprecated and make him stop destroying people's work. G.-M. Cupertino (talk) 17:20, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Are You Smarter Than a 5th Grader?

Since you're the editor that promoted Are You Smarter Than a 5th Grader? (U.S. game show) to GA status, I thought you might want to take a look at the GAR I filed on the talk page. It's been over a month and nobody's touched it. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 21:58, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Please, answer quetions

You left note on my talk page claiming If you make an edit that gets reverted, please don't revert it back, but instead try to discuss it on the article talk page.

Bear on mind that did not make it - rather I've put back an edit made by an anonymous editor after reviewing his/her work - see [9].

The truth is: Jasenovac Concentration Camp was an extermination camp - which his a well-established historic fact not disputed by any serious scholar. So, the addition was perfectly legal and on the Template:Holocaust talk page [10] I did not see that anyone seriously disputed this addition. So,

- how someone might require consensus and what it shall be???
- what made you to warn me that way???
- yours please note that any editor can be blocked for continually reverting an article, even if they have not technically violated - why it is on my page and not on the pages of others involved in reverting???--Don Luca Brazzi (talk) 02:31, 4 October 2008 (UTC)