This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Hi Laurinavicius! I know Baroque Italy probably isn't what you've got your head stuck in as I type, but could you take a look at Cosimo III de' Medici, Grand Duke of Tuscany#See also? I don't think the paragraph, nor the obscure artists, should be there, however a second opinion is valued. Thanks. Yours, -- Jack1755 (talk) 22:11, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
I agree with you on the "See Also" section and I see that you've deleted it. However, regarding the proposal to revert all edits from the past week, I'm just wondering, "Why?" What good would that do? My regards, Laurinavicius (talk) 22:13, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
It would route out all of Taksen's copyright violations. I am under the impression there are a few. -- Jack1755 (talk) 22:17, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
I see. Now, there have been 111 edits made to the page since the 18th and 101 since Taksen made his edit to the article. However, (I'm just guesstimating here) about fifty or so of those edits (only half of the total) have been made by Taksen. The other fifty or so have been made by other editors and do not constitute copyright violation. If all of these edits were to be deleted, that means that fifty or so helpful edits would be reverted, which, simply, would make all of these good edits just a waste of time and energy. So, why not just go through the article and remove his edits one by one? That certainly would take much longer than simply reverting all of these edits, but would not remove all of the edits that have improved the article. My regards, Laurinavicius (talk) 22:28, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
Can you mention the proposal on the talk page for everyone else to see? It's an interesting idea. -- Jack1755 (talk) 22:39, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
Mate, just a word of advice: cool down a bit on the page, take a step back. You seem quite a bit flustered. Although neither you nor Taksen are really being civil to one another, I must say that you're kind of making it obvious. The key, when in an editorial dispute, is being able to have a clear head and being completely calm, even when another editor is being provocative and/or uncivil (that's probably not a word, but, oh well lol). Also, try not to make threats, like your insinuation that you'd take Taksen to ARBCOM. Just do your best to relax, and remember, editing Wikipedia is supposed to be enjoyable, not stressful :) Laurinavicius (talk) 21:36, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
It's not a threat, I'm in the process of filling out a complaint. Taksen has irked me be beyond reason. We shall see how the committee pronounces. -- Jack1755 (talk) 21:41, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
Ok. Just do your best to be calm and not to get flustered. My regards, Laurinavicius (talk) 03:04, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
Have you filed that report yet? Laurinavicius (talk) 23:28, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
Nope, I'm experiencing problems with it. Who should go in the "involved parties" section? Everyone who commented? -- Jack1755 (talk) 23:33, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
I would say so. And that would be a better decision than taking it to ARBCOM. I was about to suggest that you bring it up at Dispute Resolution. -- Laurinavicius (talk) 00:25, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
Just to let you know, I added my input on the mediation page. -- Laurinavicius (talk) 01:23, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, Laur'. I am grateful for all your efforts to resovle the dispute; especially considering your self-proclaimed aversion to Italian history. Thanks again, -- Jack1755 (talk) 19:49, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
Well, I wouldn't go as far as saying "aversion". I mean, all history interests me and, thus, I enjoy it. But they are some topics that I enjoy more than others, and seventeenth-century Italy is not among them (although I have to say it has gotten better since I took a look at Cosimo two weeks ago). Anyways, you're very much welcome! Happy editing! Laurinavicius (talk) 20:54, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
OMG. Don't you get a week off school around All Saints' Eve? -- Jack1755 (talk) 10:49, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
I wish. We usually don't even get off from school All Saints' Day or All Souls' Day, even though I go to a Catholic seconday school. -- Laurinavicius (talk) 00:00, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
Bummer! My school, which is also denominational, takes every opportunity for half days or days off. For instance, every Wednesday I get a half-day, ostensibly to go for an extra-mass, however nobody actually does. We get a half-day when the Lord Mayor visits; after the Junior Cert exam results are published; and etc. And we finish for the Summer on May 30; and come back on August 30! It's great! -- Jack1755 (talk) 00:31, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
All I can say is: "LUCKY!" My school apparently has a lot more school days than you guys do. I'm kind of jealous now. Happy editing! Laurinavicius (talk) 00:35, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
Aww! Woah, I've never seen a co-ed catholic school before. How progressive! I couldn't help not logging on to the web site... -- Jack1755 (talk) 00:48, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
Wow, I never thought of it that way before. Hmm, I've actually only seen three single-sex Catholic schools (or schools in general) in the US. See, you learn something new every day! -- Laurinavicius (talk) 00:58, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
Lol. Yup! Wow, looks like a great school: I don't think we've ever done anything for OAPs or homeless people *nervous laughter*. Everyone seems happy, athletic and knowledgable! My co-ordination is embaressing... so I normally skip P.E. Does your experience echo my sentiments? -- Jack1755 (talk) 01:05, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
Not really lol. But you guys have better uniforms, by far. But then again, we have more variety and choice, so it kind of ends up being equal. But you can't deny that those jackets are really schnazzy. -- Laurinavicius (talk) 01:12, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
Lol. True! There's one hitch what's this "Note-er-Daem" business? Lost in transaltion? lol. All going well, I should be up on the site soon; you can see me in the garb! -- Jack1755 (talk) 01:20, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
It's apparently pronounced incorrectly. Idiot New Jerseyans. I'm so glad I'm from NYC! -- Laurinavicius (talk) 01:23, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
Oh, I love New York! I've been in New Jersey, and I must say it's nothing special, lol. My teachers are a bit crazy; the other day my business teacher insinuated I was gay. Lol. -- Jack1755 (talk) 01:25, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
I know, New York is the best city in the world, in my august opinion! Most of my teachers are pretty good, but there are some bad ones too. Fortunately, I haven't had any of these bad teachers, but, then again, my English teacher (who's also a professor of 20th century English literature at Cornell) openly stated that she feels that I'm a drug addict. I think she was joking lol. Laurinavicius (talk) 01:32, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
ROFL. That's pretty funny. She was rambling on about making a collage for S.P.H.E. (Sexual Physical Social Education), and said, "Put all of the things that you wish to attain when your older, a sportscar, a beatiful woman -- or man [winks at me] -- and etc." Well, at least your teacher was wrong in her presumption. LOL -- 01:38, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
Sexual Physical Social Education? Yeah, my teacher was wrong [most of the time lol]. -- Laurinavicius (talk) 01:41, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
It's a fancy way of saying Sex ed. No wonder she guessed, with rumours abounding as they do! New York is so amazing! My family and I are contemplating returning again this Summer; it's that or sailing (which I detest) around Italy for one week, and then spending another week in Florence and Modena. The former is infinitely more appealing! I can return to that palatable Italian restaurant, Trattoria dell Arte; and the SHOPPING. -- Jack1755 (talk) 01:49, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
Oh. They don't really teach that at ND. Anyways, you definitely have got to come back to New York! There's just so much to do there! But sailing around Italy sounds pretty cool, and visiting Florence and Modena is always fun (just wondering, but why that particular combination?) But you're right, Florence definitely tops Modena. I mean, Modena's not that bad, but there's not really much to do other than sightsee, and there's not really much there other than the Cathedral, the palaces, and the Piazza Grande, while Florence is one of the most beautiful cities in Italy. There's so much to do, so much to see. Need I say more? -- Laurinavicius (talk) 02:06, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
I've always wanted to see Florence, but Modena is dispensible; other candidates are Parma, Boulogne, and Milan. Have you been to any? You're right about NYC. But it must be getting a touch tedious for my parents, as they have been there far more times than I have. My father is an ardent sailor, and sails with the Royal Cork Yacht Club in Crosshaven. We did a sailing holiday in Turkey, in June, and to say the least I didn't like my 5 x 5 cabin! Then, on the last day of our trip, we ventured to the Swiss ötel in Gocek; and my God, it was marvellous! We sat on the beach all day, and I was horribly sun burned! And I bought a $30 ice-cream! A tad exorbitant, no? lol. That's akin to Irish prices! -- Jack1755 (talk) 02:29, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
I have been to Parma and Milan, but not Boulogne (well, I took a train through so I technically was there). Parma is quite beautiful, mainly due its architecture and countryside. There are bunch of very old and beautiful churches and palaces, but other than that, there's not really much else there. However, Milan is, in my opinion, the best city in far northern Italy (my own term for Italy north of the peninsula), so I would visit Milan and Florence, though Rome is always nice and I have soft spots for Syracuse and Naples (seeing as portions of my family come from there). And, where were you in Turkey, other than Gocek? Laurinavicius (talk) 02:42, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
Rome doesn't particularly excite me. We were going to sail in and around Naples, but unfavourable empirical reports steered us to Gocek. Tbh, I don't recall all the villages we sailed to -- spending most of our time in Gocek anyway -- but I do know that we peregrinated to Fethiye and an abandoned island formerly populated by Hellenes. Oh, and lest I forget, the Lycian peninsula. On previous holidays, I have been to Gumbet, Alayna, Bitez and Bodrum. I love Turkey; way more pleasant than Greece. The Southern Italy I arrived in two years ago was a poor, remote and desolate place populated by foresaken country mansions. -- Jack1755 (talk) 02:53, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
Ahh Lycia, it's beautiful there. Same in Ionia and Thrace. Personally, I prefer wester Turkey, with all its Greco-Roman influences and history to the eastern and central portions. And yeah, much of Calabria is like that, particularly the countryside. It's a shame. -- Laurinavicius (talk) 19:19, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
I withdrew Louis XVIII of France's GA nomination. I still need to do more work on it. Sorry, Laurinavicius. -- Jack1755 (talk) 17:59, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
It's fine, mate. But just to let you know for next time, there's about two month or so backlog for GA assessments so you would've had some time before it would've been assessed to work on it. Anyways, what do you feel needs to be done? -- Laurinavicius (talk) 21:22, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
Well, I've been monitoring the Royalty and Nobility reviews section, and in the last week about 4 articles have been reviewed; leaving Louis XVIII and Anna Maria Luisa. He could have, hypothetically, been reviewed in the next five minutes, but I digress. I wish to polish the writing a touch more, remove superfluous sections, and add more information on the Second Restoration. Yours, -- Jack1755 (talk) 21:28, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
Sounds good. If you need any help, just let me know. Regards, -- Laurinavicius (talk) 21:30, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, Laur'! -- Jack1755 (talk) 21:36, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
You're welcome, Jack! By the way, would you mind taking a look at this article for me? Kebeta and I have done a lot of work on it and ultimately nominated it for GA recently, and I'd just like another opinion on whether or not it's ready. Thanks! -- Laurinavicius (talk) 22:05, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
Sure, no problem. I'll have a look at it in five minutes; I just have to finish up an edit on Pauline Bonaparte. -- Jack1755 (talk) 22:08, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
It might need a little tweaking in the vocabulary department. There are quite a few peacock terms, such as "unforgettable" and "beautiful" throughout the article. I inserted two hidden comments too. Hope this helps, -- Jack1755 (talk) 22:48, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, mate! I'm working on removing those peacock terms, which shouldn't take too long. Thanks again, Laurinavicius (talk) 22:53, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
Jonathan Alter
Hi! I added something to Jonathan Alter's bio which has twice been removed. Is this a technical issue, or am I failing to document the addition? I have tried to figure this out reading FAQs etc. but have been unable. Thanks! GHackettNY (talk) 02:40, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
Hi there! After going through the article's history, I see that you've only made one edit to the article, which is still on the page. As for a second edit, I don't see one, so it has not been reverted by another editor. If you edited the article twice, but only one edit still exists, then the only possible thing that I could think of is that the missing edit did not go through the server because a) your internet went down; b) the servers went down (which rarely, if ever, happens); or c) another editor edited the article at the same time as you, so his/her edit was saved and yours wasn't.
I also see that you're a new user, so if you have any questions (which you will, trust me) just let me know. Happy editing! Laurinavicius (talk) 03:05, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
Looking at the History, it appears my edit was removed by 74.66.3.1 then Reverted by you (?). Confusing! All I know is I made an addition, it was removed, I made the same revision and it was removed after a few days and then restored tonight. I feel I must be doing something wrong. Or are additions/revisions automatically deleted until someone can review them? GHackettNY (talk) 03:25, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
Actually, 74.66.3.1 removed your edit, then I reverted his deletion of it twice, so your edit is still on the page. And, it might seem confusing at first, but sooner or later you'll be a pro at this sort of thing. However, I don't see another edit of yours to this article, but your addition is still there. And no, edits are shown as soon as they are made and do not need to be reviewed by other editors, which is a major difference between the English Wikipedia and other Wikipedias, like the French and German ones. And no, you're not doing anything wrong, you're just getting the hang of things. Trust me, we've all been there. If you have any more questions just let me know. Happy editing! Laurinavicius (talk) 20:30, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for your kind help and attention to this! GH GHackettNY (talk) 06:37, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
You're welcome! If you have any more questions, need help with something, or would like a work buddy, just let me know! Happy editing! Laurinavicius (talk) 22:24, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
Mediation Cabal case
I have taken the mediation case submitted with you listed as a party to the dispute at the Mediation Cabal. I am reviewing the case history and the disputed talk page itself. First, I would like to know whether you fully agree to be participate in the good faith effort of the mediation to avoid further dispute. Thank You Reubzz (talk) 13:05, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
Of course! Thank you for so kindly mediating. Just to let you know, things have quited down over the past couple days (actually nearly week) as all three of the disputing editors (Jack1755, Taksen, and myself) have backed off the article and talk page, just so that things can quiet down and smooth over. Again, thanks for volunteer to mediate and happy editing! Laurinavicius (talk) 23:17, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
Walls of Dubrovnik
Hello, friend of my friend! I see that you are improving the article about the Walls of Dubrovnik. Well done! Croatian language is almost identical to my native language so if you need any help with the sources, please let me know. Anyway, I hope you've walked on those walls; there's a lot to see there. Bye! Surtsicna (talk) 22:54, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
Hey there! Thanks for the compliment! And just to let you know, a friend of my friend is a friend of mine also! Regarding the sources, the only thing that still needs to be done regarding them is about references to the internet Encyclopedia Britannica, which is the last thing that needs to be fixed before the article passes its GAN. GregorB said that he's going to clear that up tomorrow, so it'll be a GA tomorrow! If the article is to make a run for A or FA or if any help is needed with improving the article, I'll let you know, as the more the merrier. Happy editing! Laurinavicius (talk) 23:39, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
As a member of the Military history WikiProject or World War I task force, you may be interested in competing in the Henry Allingham International Contest! The contest aims to improve article quality and member participation within the World War I task force. It will also be a step in preparing for Operation Great War Centennial, the project's commemorative effort for the World War I centenary.
If you would like to participate, please sign up by 11 November 2009, 00:00, when the first round is scheduled to begin! You can sign up here, read up on the rules here, and discuss the contest here! This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 19:25, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLIV (October 2009)
The October 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) 19:25, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
Cosimo III -- Mediation
Hi, Laur'. I noticed that Reubzz has shortlisted the mediation case for closure. "Article is dormant - parties seemed to have calmed down - considering closure of case". I'm unsure of the usual proccess for these things, but I think it impolitic to close the case before:
1. it has formally opened.
2 a resolution has been reached.
If it is closed, what do we do next? -- Jack1755 (talk) 20:56, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
I honestly have no idea. If the situation was still going on, then I'd suggest we go to Dispute Resolution or ARBCOM. But since it's not really going on and Taksen hasn't edited the article or talk page in a while, then I don't know what to do. Regards, Laurinavicius (talk) 21:51, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
Though, we certainly can't leave it in its current state... -- Jack1755 (talk) 22:22, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
I know. However, the motion to remove all of Taksen's edits to the page has passed, so we can revert his edits out of the way, which certainly improves the article. My regards, Laurinavicius (talk) 22:25, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
Ok :). Sounds good! By the way, Grand Duchy of Tuscany is being reviewed, but if its anything like the week I've had, it's going to fail. I hope my sense of foreboding is wrong. :( Best of luck, -- Jack1755 (talk) 22:26, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
*sigh* Looks like I'm right -- Talk:Grand Duchy of Tuscany/GA1. Although, the reviewer isn't assessing it by GA-criteria. The GA template isn't used either. -- Jack1755 (talk) 22:37, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
He's doing it differently than how you and I do it, but he's assessing it by the GA-criteria. The section headings are the different portions of the criteria, so underneath each one he's giving the items that he feels need to be imporved. Anyways, I hope it does pass, but it looks like it'll be put on hold, which means more work! YAY! Laurinavicius (talk) 22:43, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
Lol. But the "is it in accordance with WP:MOS?" isn't there. And he is inaccurate in quite a few of his judgments. Like, for isntance, and. One can start a sentence with and, but he doesen't think so. Things like that....this is his POV.... he isn't comparing it to WP:Good article criteria. Like saying the most elementary facts need citations, for instance, Bianca and Grand Duke Ferdinando were rumoured to be poisoned undisputedly. After all, WP:Citing sources says "Sources should be cited when adding material that is challenged or likely to be challenged". -- Jack1755 (talk) 22:57, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
Then speak to him about it. -- Laurinavicius (talk) 23:09, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
Just to let you know, it failed. -- 01:01, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
I noticed. All it really needs is a general copyedit and a fixing of some citations. To me, those are not grounds to fail an article, but whatever. We'll fix these mistakes and re-nominate it soon. My regards, Laurinavicius (talk) 01:05, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
I still have somes bones to pick with him. There are citations for everything, although they aren't every sentence. And he calls my "painting after" format "awkward", though I've seen it used in edited, third-party books! My signature is bust for some reason. -- Jack1755 (talk) 01:12, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
Again, I would just speak to him about it and ask him to explain his rationale behind saying such things, as you disagree wholeheartedly. And that sucks about your signature; it's probably just a bug or glitch. My regards, Laurinavicius (talk) 01:59, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
Hey Laur'. Why did you tag Francesco de' Medici as needing "An appropriate infobox"; it already has one. -- Jack1755 (talk) 19:06, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
Whoops! I must've missed it somehow. I've already removed the tag, so, no harm done. -- Laurinavicius (talk) 19:15, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
It's OK! What do you think of this? -- Jack1755 (talk) 19:19, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
What about it? -- Laurinavicius (talk) 19:22, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
The whole situation :P. LOL. I kid, I kid. In reagrds to her titles. -- Jack1755 (talk) 19:24, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
Lol. Well, I guess since salic-law was abolished by the Tuscan Senate, she would have been able to become the Grand Duchess, but seeing as the Grand Duchy was incorporated into the Holy Roman Empire after the Treaty of Westphalia, the Holy Roman Emperor would have feudal rights over the Grand Duchy. Therefore, since Charles repudiated this ruling, she could not be created Grand Princess, and thus, Grand Duchess later on. I hope that helps! -- Laurinavicius (talk) 19:44, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Hawkeye7
Hi Laurinavicius You've both supported and neutraled Hawkeye7's RfA. Could you strike/indent the one that is obsolete? In related news, I've indented your duplicate support at JohnCD's RfA, feel free to remove it entirely if you will. :) Cheers, Amalthea 03:04, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for letting me know about that! I meant to strike/indent my earlier vote on Hawkeye7's RfA, but it must have slipped my mind so I never did. On JohnCD's, though, I meant to support him twice, just trying to bolster his stats and increase his chances. Too bad you noticed :) Thanks again! Laurinavicius (talk) 03:17, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
Ah, I see, sorry to have ruined your plans. ;) Cheers, Amalthea 03:26, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
It's fine, mate. Time to resort to Plan B! ;) Happy editing! Laurinavicius (talk) 03:47, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
Anticipation...
Ugh, I think you may have been correct about the GA waiting-time. I'm growing impatient with Anna Maria Luisa de' Medici. 15 days seems like 5 months.... How are the Walls of Ragusa? -- Jack1755 (talk) 22:38, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
Much better. I've gotten rid of all of those peacock terms, improved the prose, fixed some links and re-directs, and added some citations. Do you think it'll pass? -- Laurinavicius (talk) 22:42, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
Let's find out; I'll put you out of your privation, and review it for you! From preliminary reading, I think it should pass. I'll keep you posted. -- Jack1755 (talk) 22:47, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the assessment, mate! Work on improving the things that you suggested is going along quite well, I'd say we're about halfway done. Half the sources and some of the prose has been fixed, so we should be done by tomorrow. Thanks again! Laurinavicius (talk) 22:22, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
Other than fixing up the Encyclopedia Britannica reference, we're done! The Peer Review page needs to be archived (I'll do that now) and kept there, while a link to that page should be added onto the Talk Page of Walls of Dubrovnik so that editors could look at the Peer Review in the future. My regards, Laurinavicius (talk) 23:45, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
The article's ready to go, Jack! We're eagerly awaiting your decision! -- Laurinavicius (talk) 22:20, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
Hi Laurinavicius! Just want to remind you to archive Peer review of Walls of Dubrovnik. I would done it my self, but don't want to mess something. Thanks. Kebeta (talk) 14:56, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
Hi Kebeta! As far as I know, Peer Reviews don't need to be archived, seeing as I've never seen an archived Peer Review. I just looked at a bunch of old Peer Reviews (about a dozen or so) from the past couple of years and none of them have been archived. My regards, Laurinavicius (talk) 17:26, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
Problem solved then. Regards. Kebeta (talk) 17:36, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
Ok then. DO you want to set up another Peer Review for Klis Fortress? Laurinavicius (talk) 18:33, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
Hi Laurinavicius. I was little busy in private life, so here is an answer with some delay. I will set up another Peer Review for Klis Fortress, but I would like to fix references firstly. So, we can get better guidance for the article, instead the usual "citation style is inconsistent; internet references lack author, access date, publisher, etc". Do you agree? Kebeta (talk) 10:45, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
BTW, whats up with the Walls of Dubrovnik? Is there something else that needs to be fixed for GA, or Jack1755 is just to busy? Regards. Kebeta (talk) 10:52, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
Sure, that sounds good. Regarding Walls of Dubrovnik, as far as I understand nothing mroe needs to be done, so I don't know why he hasn't gotten to it yet. I'll go leave him a message on his talk. My regards, Laurinavicius (talk) 15:05, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
O.k. Laurinavicius. Regards. Kebeta (talk) 13:47, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
???????
Why did you mess up my page? The information i gave was valid and current. i have visited many deserts in search of unanswered questions and its very wrong that you would mess up the research that i have posted! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Redrosekara (talk • contribs) 02:15, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
Hi there! Well, first of all, I did not "mess up your page", I merely nominated that article for speedy deletion. Second, all Wikipedia content is edited collaboratively, per WP:Ownership of articles. Simply, there are no owners of article; therefore, no editor can refer to an article as "mine". Third, the reason why I suggested that that article spedily deleted is because it's information could be found elsewhere in the encyclopedia (in the desert article) and it consisted entirely of original research (as stated in Wikipedia:No original research: "Wikipedia does not publish original research or original thought. This includes unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position. This means that Wikipedia is not the place to publish your own opinions, experiences, arguments, or conclusions."), which you just affirmed that that article consisted entirely of. If you have any more questions or need some assistance, please don't hesitate to let me know, as I'll gladly give you a hand. Happy editing! Laurinavicius (talk) 02:39, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
i think that you are stupid for wanting the page that i created deleted. i will have you know that there is no desert page, therefore there isnt anything on the temperature of the desert at all. Next time think about it and do your research before you request that an article is deleted!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Redrosekara (talk • contribs) 13:00, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
Hi again! First, please refrain from making personal attacks, per Wikipedia:No personal attacks. Second, there is an article on the desert, which you can easily access by clicking the blue word "desert" (this is called an internal link, as it links one Wikipedia page to another with one simple click), which includes the information regarding the temperature of the desert. Third, I'll give you my reasoning for requesting that the article you created be spedily deleted: the information within the article can be found elsewhere in the encyclopedia (in the desert article) and it consisted entirely of original research (as stated in Wikipedia:No original research: "Wikipedia does not publish original research or original thought. This includes unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position. This means that Wikipedia is not the place to publish your own opinions, experiences, arguments, or conclusions."), which you stated that it consisted entirely of. Therefore, it should be spedily deleted, and it ultimately was. If you have any more questions or need some help, please let me know, as I enjoy helping out a new editors. Happy editing! Laurinavicius (talk) 21:49, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
Dubrovnik -- GA
Good day Jack! I just remind you that Kebeta, GregorB, and I have been waiting about ten days for you to get back to us about whether or not our improvements to Walls of Dubrovnik are sufficient and bring it up to GA-class. Not to rush you, but you would you mind looking at the article next chance you get? Thanks! Laurinavicius (talk) 03:26, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
Hi Laurinavicius, you still haven't fixed the main sources per my reccomendations. And, might I add, now that the internet sources have been ironed out, I realise that out of the 15 main sources only 8 have corresponding in-line citations! Everything else is fine. -- Jack1755 (talk) 14:52, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
Hello Jack! I was wondering about the status of the GA nomination, and then I found this exchange between you and Laurinavicius, which prompted me to do one more round of minor cleanup regarding reference parameters and formatting. I squeezed as much as I could in this respect.
I must correct you regarding your claim that "out of the 15 main sources only 8 have corresponding in-line citations" - in fact 14 out of 15 main sources have in-line citations, the only exception being Zlatno doba Dubrovnika XV. i XVI. stoljeće. That's why I personally find the "Main sources" section somewhat redundant, but I'll defer to what other editors think is best. If you have any suggestions regarding possible leftover issues with the article - well, we'll do it! Cheers, GregorB (talk) 21:18, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
My bad, the whole thing was awfully confusing! Call me when you need me. Apologies for my tardiness, I've been ill for the last two weeks. -- Jack1755 (talk) 21:36, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
Gregor said earlier today that he went over and improved the citations again today, saying that he feels that they are "satisfactory for GA". Would you mind looking them as soon as possible and seeing if they're up to par? Thanks! -- Laurinavicius (talk) 00:55, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
It's fine mate, hope you feel better! Laurinavicius (talk) 00:57, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
[portions of this conversation were copied over from User talk:Jack1755]
Thanks for reassessing this article; it is currently part of an educational assignment and is undergoing a Good Article review. If you'd like to leave comments on the review (since you are already familiar with the article, having just reasseesed it), please feel welcome to do so - the more reviewers, the merrier! :) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 18:39, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
You're welcome, mate! Educational assignment, eh? Sounds fun! I just wish my school would do something like that; too bad that Wikipedia is strictly taboo there. It's actually been blocked on the school's network, much to my chagrin...Anyways, regarding this article: there's definitely a major problem with it due to the the large amounts of copyright violations and plagiarism, but, as you said on its talk, it certainly is "salvageable". If you guys need a hand with salvaging it, I'd be glad to help out. Happy editing! Laurinavicius (talk) 23:54, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
Clockwork (band)
Hi. I have heard your plea and declined the speedy on this; but I have taken it to AfD because I don't think they meet WP:BAND. The article doesn't actually say they have appeared on The Hills - it only claims that a song two of them wrote is soon to be featured there. Anyway the AfD is here. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 14:23, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
Hi! Thanks for letting me know. I have commented on the discussion, which, incidentally, supports the deletion of the article. My regards, Laurinavicius (talk) 00:12, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Hello Laurinavicius, and thanks for your work patrolling new changes. I am just informing you that I declined the speedy deletion of Cashflow INSITE - a page you tagged - because: linked to article, seems to be a reasonable assertion of notability. PROD or take to AfD if required. Please review the criteria for speedy deletion before tagging further pages. If you have any questions or problems, please let me know. GedUK 13:52, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
Hi there! Thanks for letting me know. I have nominated this article at AfD, as I feel that it does not meet WP:COMPANY. The AfD is here. Thanks again, and happy editing! Laurinavicius (talk) 00:46, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Hi, sorry for the late response but according to some Arabic-speaking editors I asked, the name is fine as it is. \//\ 20:30, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
Hey! It's fine, mate. Now, since the name is fine as it is, we need to correct all instances in the article where his name is spelled differently. My regards, Laurinavicius (talk) 23:53, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
Done. — \//\ 01:39, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
Sounds good, mate! Laurinavicius (talk) 03:37, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
Saw your name in the honourable Guild of Copy Editors and was wondering if you could give Emperor Heraclius a good shake down. Your skills or any help would be appreciated! -- Esemono (talk) 14:05, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
Sure, I'd be glad to! I should have it done within the next few days. Are you planning on nominating the article for GA? Laurinavicius (talk) 17:16, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
Really? That's great! I am planning to go for GA. -- Esemono (talk) 03:52, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
That's what I thought. The article is generally in good shape, but they are some things that need fixing. I'll get to work on it as soon as I can, but I'm also working on some other projects simultaneously, which will cut significantly into my work time. However, I'll make it a priority to have it done by Friday. My regards, Laurinavicius (talk) 04:01, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
I'm sorry for having taken so long to get to the article, but I've had a lot of other things on my mind, both on- and off-Wiki. I've made a couple of more edits to the article so far, and I hope to make a bunch more in the next few hours. However, I won't be able to get to the bulk of the work until Wednesday, at the earliest, but I'll definitely have the article completed by the end of Thanksgiving break (within a week). In the meantime, you should nominate the article for GA? Due to the immense backlog, there is little chance that the article would be reviewed before I have completed, and, if that does somehow happen, the article would pass anyway. My regards, Laurinavicius (talk) 00:12, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
That's great I'm really excited about you working your magic on the article! -- Esemono (talk) 23:28, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
I've got the magic touch lol! Laurinavicius (talk) 03:11, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for taking time to read over the review i'm getting for White Zombie! This user reviewing it is giving slightly weird advice and ignoring some Manual of Style information that I'm bringing up to her. I hope you deterred her from wanting a Theme's section as it'll be next to impossible to dig stuff up for it! Cheers. Andrzejbanas (talk) 04:11, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
You're welcome, mate! I learned that she had made numerous odd reviews (including a four-word one) from reading a discussion about her first five reviews here, so I decided to check out the ones done after the discussion had occurred to see if they were correctly done. While this particular review was better than her previous ones, you're right: she is giving you some weird advice and ignoring MoS. I feel that you should certainly get a second opinion for this review. By the way, I'll give the "Plot" section a copy-edit, as it looks like it certianly needs one. Good luck and happy editing! Laurinavicius (talk) 20:20, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
Glad to hear! Get back to me if and when you've got the time to do it! Andrzejbanas (talk) 20:24, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
Well, seeing as tensions and frustrations are starting to flare up on the review page, I've just left a comment suggesting that the article be put On Hold so that you and I could give the article a good ol' copyedit before giving it back to the reviewer. So, I guess that means we should get started ASAP. Sounds fun, eh? Happy editing! Laurinavicius (talk) 22:22, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
Sounds good to me! I'll get to it either today or tomorrow. I've had a long day myself. Thanks for all your help! Andrzejbanas (talk) 23:02, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
You're welcome, mate! I'm glad to help out! :) Laurinavicius (talk) 23:03, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
Another Thing
Who was the winner and loser of the Congo Crisis and The Troubles? I can't figure out who won and lost because the table on the right side does not have two lists of a winner and a loser. B-Machine (talk) 16:07, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
I would say that main winner of the Congo Crisis was the Congo, as it gained its independence. Cuba was also a winner as it gained a key ally in the region as a result of its intervention on the side of the Congo. Belgium, Katanga, and South Kasai were the loser as Belgium lost its only colony, which was a major source of its wealth, and Katanga and South Kasai were defeated in their bids for independence.
The Troubles ended up being a stalemate and didn't really improve either side, and only really brought about a ceasfire and the Belfast and St. Andrews Agreements. I hope that helps! My regards, Laurinavicius (talk) 23:51, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia does not support original research. If you think the article has any value then you should find citations to support it. As far as I can see it duplicates material in the article to which it was diverted. Personally I think you would be better accepting that and working on the other article, possibly renaming it. I'll give it a few days, but if there are no citations it gets nominated for deletion. --SnowdedTALK 22:40, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
First off, I understand that Wikipedia does not support original research. Second, the article certainly has value on Wikipedia and definitely should not be deleted. There are no valid grounds for deletion of this article. Third, I'd like to explain why "it duplicates material in the article to which it was diverted". Srnec, in his attempt to have Middle Francia merged into Lotharingia, copied information from the Middle Francia article and added it into the Lotharingia, which is why parts of the two look similar. Fourth, this new merge proposal needs to be discussed on the article's talk page before anything is done, and all related WikiProjects need to be informed neutrally so that all interested editors need to participate, as per Help:Merging, which states that: "[i]f [the merge] is controversial or your merger ends up reverted,...propose it on either or both of the affected pages." Fifth, according to WP:Merging, "[m]erging should not be considered if...the topics are discrete subjects and deserve their own articles even though they may be short." Lotharingia and Middle Francia were two entirely separate political entities, linked because the former came about as a result of the partition of the latter. Therefore, this article should not be merged, let alone be deleted. My regards, Laurinavicius (talk) 23:07, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
If you have no citations then the material cannot stand. it really is simple. If you think the article is valid then find some supporting material, including the various claims above on which I make no comment. --SnowdedTALK 23:21, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
I'm adding citations now. My regards, Laurinavicius (talk) 23:31, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
Thanks
Thankyou Laurinavicius for removing that from my talk page. Appreciated. Izzedine 10:33, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
I'm trying to merge lists of wars 1900-1944 with lists of wars 1945-1989 and add 1990-1999 wars and conflicts to create list of wars 1900-1999. Please leave a comment at Talk:List of wars 1945–1989 in support of the merge. 15:00, 17 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by B-Machine (talk • contribs)
First of all, mate, this blatantly biased message constitutes inappropriate canvassing. Second, I personally disagree with the merge, as the list would become much too large and cumbersome if it would be condensed into a single article. My regards, Laurinavicius (talk) 23:20, 19 December 2009 (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) 19:03, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for showing me this. Do you want me to comment on it? -- Laurinavicius (talk) 23:22, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
If you please. How are things with you? We haven't talked in a while. --- Jack1755 (talk) 23:36, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
I'm doing fine, thanks for asking. How are you? And the only reason why I asked was because the discussion appeared to be wrapping up when I first looked at it, but now it's not and things are getting a bit incivil. Yay! More drama! -- Laurinavicius (talk) 23:42, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
LOL. I only just discovered how the talks degenerated into an open fray! I'm sick :(. And I'm in the middle of my X-Mas tests. How's life in lovely NJ? -- Jack1755 (talk) 23:45, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
Lol talks often do that, but I never would have thought that Louis XVIII's infobox would be this controversial! It could be better, mainly due to the hundred-page term paper due Tuesday. -- Laurinavicius (talk) 23:48, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
H**y s**t!? Are you kidding? That sounds absolutely horrible! I hope its on a subject you enjoy! And what is Sanata Claus bringing litle Laurinavicius? LOL. -- Jack1755 (talk) 23:50, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
I wish I was kidding. But luckily, it's on one of my favorite topics: World War II. My thesis is that the Comintern nations (at the time, the Soviet Union, Mongolia), and Tannu Tuva) were not truly "allied" with the Grand Alliance of the war, but rather just cooperated with them against mutual foes. And I absolutely have no idea, though I'm hoping for some more books. Reading's my favorite! -- Laurinavicius (talk) 23:55, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
Same! I adore books. Little does Mom know that I've read quite a few of my Christmas books! I don't know why, but my interest in WWII is scant -- at best. It should be interesting for me, but, for some reason, we don't click. Interesting thesis! I hope it does well. Oh God, I'm so bored/sick. I'm basically sitting down on the couch on Windows Live, stoned on painkillers, stuffing my mouth with cakes...which aren't even remotely conducive to recovery, despite the fact they're supppppppper tasty! Anyway, I don't want to bore you with my life! However, I have to add that my estranged great-aunt is coming for X-Mas!! -- Jack1755 (talk) 00:01, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
That sounds just like me when I was sick last week lol. "Estranged great aunt", eh? Good luck! Laurinavicius (talk) 00:19, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
The one that cut us out of her will! "I'm not leaving any money cause you're too well-heeled". Now she's at our mercy in a nursing home outside the city! My, how the tables have turned! Aw, you were sick too? I hate windows live. All these freaks seem to have my addy. :/ . How's wiki-life? I nominated Anna Maria Luisa for FA! -- Jack1755 (talk) 00:29, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
Wow, she wrote you at of her will? My grandmother did the same, but it's probably out of senility rather than thinking we're "too well-heeled". Wiki-life's fine, things are going pretty well. Good luck with Anna Maria Luisa! If you need any help getting it passed, I'm willing and able! Laurinavicius (talk) 20:09, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
Would you mind checking Anna Maria Luisa for "over-florid prose". Apparently, the word "scion" is so incredibly difficult that it can't feature. Thanks. OMG. Did she? My favourite actress died today. :( -- Jack1755 (talk) 20:43, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
Sure, but can you just give me an example of "over-florid prose", so I know what to look for? Thanks. And yeah, she did. Well, she kind of didn't write up a will, but just decided to give away nearly all of her possessions to my uncle before she died. Honestly, I don't think I've ever heard of Brittany Murphy, but God bless... Laurinavicius (talk) 20:57, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
Examples can be seen here. Thanks. How haven't you heard of her, Laur'!? OMG. Clearly Laurinavicius lives in an undergroud cave in New Jersey. :P -- Jack1755 (talk) 21:08, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
Ok, thanks. I think I've seen her a few times, but I've never heard of her. And apparently I do, although my cave's special: it's got Wi-Fi! :D Laurinavicius (talk) 21:14, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
LOL. Things have gotten even crazier over @ Talk:Louis XVIII. God, I hope that he remains King of France and of Navarre. And to top it all of, apprently, estranged great-aunty Joan is racist! It' gonna be a good X-Mas. -- Jack1755 (talk) 21:25, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
I agree with you on that, it should remain that way. I would put my two sense in, but I really don't have reason why I feel this way lol. And good luck with her! Have fun! ;) Laurinavicius (talk) 23:11, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
LOL. I feel like impaling Surtsicna. Why does he always bring up trivial things like this without citing third-party published sources to bolster his arguement.? *sigh* I'm gonna go drown my sorrows with Keeping up with the Kardashians. You could always just go for a support per Jack1755. Go on! You know you want to ;). Fee free to solicit the assitance of other editors. -- Jack1755 (talk) 23:22, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
Keeping Up with the Kardashians? Really? You're probably the only person who watches that, apart from them lol. And sure! I'll go round up some support for you. A little bit of canvassing never hurt nobody! :D Laurinavicius (talk) 23:27, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
LOL. Gotta love E! and all its quality programming. :P I don't think that rule applies to us -- Wikipedia:Ignore all rules. We better continued our scheming by e-mail: jackmcnamee1[at]hotmail[dot com] I'm so gonna get a 24hour ban for this...lol -- Jack1755 (talk) 23:35, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
You're getting a 24-hour ban? Ouch! What for? -- Laurinavicius (talk) 23:38, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
Don't worry, I'm not! I said I was gonna get one for canvassing like I am :P. LOL. I need to email you some rather humourous canvassing I've done! -- Jack1755 (talk) 23:45, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
Oh lol! Sure, my e-mail's mlaurinavicius@optonline.net. -- Laurinavicius (talk) 22:24, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
Are you ready to rock!
Hi Laurinavicius, it's nice to talk to you again! I will set up another Peer Review for Klis Fortress, and I already set up Peer Review for Battle of Szigetvár. If you are interested...
Battle of Szigetvár - It needs a good copyediting. Lots of info I added is copy-paste from books, so it would need a copyediting because of copyright. Also a modern touch in text, instead of archaic one from the books is needed.
Klis Fortress I am fixing References (Footnotes and Bibliography), and will expand a lead section before Peer Review.
If you have some time, and you are interested, please help. Besides copyediting, any additional comments and help is welcome. Regards, Kebeta (talk) 12:34, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
It's nice to talk to you too! I'd be glad to help out! Both articles need a good ol' copyedit, especially the former due to the copyright issues. However, I won't be able to really get cracking on these for a few days do to real-life commitments and another project on Wikipedia (copyediting Heraclius for GA). But I'm going to have a lot of time over Christmas break to work on these articles, so that should make up for it. Good luck and happy editing! Laurinavicius (talk) 21:45, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
Thanks Laurinavicius! Actually, there is no need to hurry at all, as I am expanding Klis Fortress further. Kebeta (talk) 09:30, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
Hi Laurinavicius! Tomorrow I will finish Klis Fortress, and then I am going on wiki break for Christmas break. If you have some time for copyediting, that would be great. As soon after you are done, I will nominate it for GA. But, as you will see, there is much more to copyedit, then it use to be. Marry Christmas & Happy Editing! Kebeta (talk) 14:39, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
Sounds good! I'm actually going to have a lot of time for Wikipedia over break so I should be able to get a lot of work done. -- Laurinavicius (talk) 21:45, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
Sounds great! Thanks. Kebeta (talk) 23:34, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
Awesome! You're very much welcome! Laurinavicius (talk) 23:39, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
Belated thanks for your support at my RfA! When I have had a conversation with someone, I leave their talk page watchlisted, and if it turns up in my watchlist later scan down looking for my username to see whether I can now take it off the list. Doing that with your talk page, I came on User talk:Laurinavicius#Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Hawkeye7. Now, after my RfA I decided not to send thankspam; but anyone who voted for me twice is clearly a person of such superlative judgement, discrimination and good taste and as to deserve an individual message! JohnCD (talk) 10:32, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
Anna Maria Luisa de' Medici -- Candidature
Hi Laur'. I'd appreciate it if you passed some comment on Anna Maria Luisa's featured article candidature; as of late, talks have become stagnant. A fresh opinion might shake things up! Thanks. Hope you had a great X-Mas!!!!! -- 00:33, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
GA
"Howard the Duck (fix any issues that arise during the GA review)"
Hello, Laurinavicius. You have new messages at Mimiseku's talk page. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
I hope I am doing this right. I left a question about my article in my talk section. Mimiseku (talk) 21:52, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the help!
Hello, Laurinavicius. You have new messages at Mimiseku's talk page. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Thanks for all of your help. Mimiseku (talk) 21:42, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Philadelphia Canoe Club
Thanks for letting me know, mate. Happy editing! Laurinavicius (talk) 20:29, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
WikiProject Films December 2009 Newsletter
The December 2009 issue of the Films 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. If you have an idea for improving the newsletter please leave a message on my talk page. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 01:54, 2 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) 03:46, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
Thank You
(Jordan S. Wilson (talk) 05:56, 5 January 2010 (UTC))Thank you I'll take that to consideration.
Thanks for the greeting! 75.45.117.229 (talk) 23:52, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
You're very much welcome, mate! Happy editing! Laurinavicius (talk) 23:54, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
Could You Do Me A Favor?
At Congo Crisis and The Troubles, could you reorganize the belligerents list into two columns (winner and loser)? B-Machine (talk) 20:22, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
It's already been done lol. If you need any more help, I'll be glad to do so. Happy editing! Laurinavicius (talk) 00:47, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
Uh, you didn't do it. They still have three columns. If you didn't want to do it, you could have just said no. B-Machine (talk) 18:48, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
I know I didn't do it, seeing as it was already done. The list is organized into three columns: one column with the winning alliance and two columns with each of the losing coalitions (in the case of the Congo Crisis), and three separate columns for each coalition for The Troubles. My regards, Laurinavicius (talk) 21:33, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
Done. — \//\ 01:39, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
. Izzedine 07:46, 14 December 2009 (UTC)