User:EyeSerene/Archive13

Falaise Pocket

Thanks--Jacurek (talk) 16:26, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Falaise pocket

Original (left) and mine (right)

I've tried to convert the jpg into an svg, which I have now completed. Could you just check it and then use it as necessary - I don't know anything about the subject except the original, so any changes are probably mistakes. Don't feel you have to use it, it did take some time, but if it's not up to scratch, I'll do my best to improve it. - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 17:54, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Changes: sure. I'm working on it. - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 11:05, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

OK, done. Key's not brilliant, but useable. See what you think now. Should all be transferrable to other languages. - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 12:29, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

With Inkscape, to get the fonts to work, you need to do two things - firstly ensure that all the text boxes are in a compatible font (there is a list somewhere) but 'Sans' is the one I use, for some reason it may show if you select the text box, it may show as the font when it isn't. Anyway, that being done, select the text boxes and then Path > Object to Path. Anyway, see Wikipedia:SVG_Help for more stuff about it. - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 08:01, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Hiya

Hi EyeSerene. I have another article at FAC right now, Brazilian battleship Minas Geraes, and I was wondering if you could go on a copy-editing run through it; two opposes have arisen over my poor prose. :) If you can't, that's ok too! Thanks and cheers, —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 19:15, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Replied at my talk page. —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 20:39, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

Thanl you for your swift response to the vandalism of the will to power article. Drew Smith What I've done 07:44, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I second that. I also have to admit to being a bit puzzled by that last diff I posted over at ANI, because it seemed like it went beyond the issues with the article and was directed specifically at me. I hope this is over, but then again I hoped that before. Anyway, I appreciate your involvement. Zephyrnthesky (talk) 18:12, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

As it stands right now, I don't think it merits any additional action, and you've confirmed my initial thoughts about it. But I did want to make sure you saw that. Also, I can emphatically and whole-heartedly state that I've never met him, and I have absolutely no desire to do so. Thanks again. Zephyrnthesky (talk) 00:16, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, EyeSerene. You have new messages at The ed17's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

—Ed (Talk • Contribs) 19:28, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Your comments would be appreciated

Here in regards to this users unblock request. He has been accused of being a sock, and it seems that you have a bit more insight into this than I do. Maybe you could see if that accusation is unfounded or not? Thank you, Tiptoety ^talk 20:31, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Sawyer

No argument from me over either of those blocks. But as for the advice then get an admin involved. If talk-page consensus is on your side you shouldn't need to revert more than once anyway, you're making certain assumptions that I'm not sure are all warranted here. Of course they ought to be, so I'd be very grateful if you could keep this dubious article on your watchlist. -- Hoary (talk) 22:25, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

OK, you know the background better than I do ;) I'll keep it watchlisted. EyeSerene^talk 07:14, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Really,this is not the truly outrageous case to escalate so quickly. I think she's editing in good fait, but is obviously overinvolved. (And what she says about the Brinkley connection is I think probably correct.) DGG (talk) 15:39, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure I follow your first sentence, DGG - if you're suggesting that a week is too harsh, I have no objections to reducing the block (and I trust your judgement to do so yourself if you like). I agree about the good faith, but she seemed to me from comments on her talk-page and elsewhere to have some misconceptions about what constitutes notability and reliable sourcing in a BLP article, to misunderstand how we resolve content disputes, and to be engaged in something of a crusade. I've found with similar situations in the past that blocks much shorter than a week don't give enough of a break from the disruption for our regulars to address the issues with the article (though I do appreciate that there are other factors in this case!). Do you think that an unblock plus full protection might be a worthwhile alternative? EyeSerene^talk 16:42, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

yes, reducing it to a day and full protection for a week or two might do nicely, so i will do that. Her worst misconceptions seem to be about copyright. It might even encourage her to work on something else. Her worst misconceptions seem to be about copyright, so we'll need to watch. DGG (talk) 18:58, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

No argument with you doing that - the time already served covers the edit-warring anyway, and with all this scrutiny I'm sure we'll be able to handle anything untoward. All the best, EyeSerene^talk 19:56, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I have to say it's unfortunate to see that a very warranted block can be so casually reduced (to next to nothing) when the editor in question's behavior has been so out-of-line for so long. DGG is well-aware of 1027E's long-term abuse of editing privileges and to say her actions are in good faith is absurd. Is it good faith to accuse other editors of racism? Next we'll be awarding barnstars for personal attacks.  Mbinebri  ^{talk ←} 20:27, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

"Abuse of editing privileges" is a harsh way of putting it (and the sarcasm isn't helpful). However, DGG understates the problem. This is a(n) SPA (one whose only other discernable purpose is writing up her biographee's father) whose ability to digest/follow advice depends a lot on whether the advice seems to further the purpose. Whether or not she edits in good faith, she's quick to infer the worst in others, and when asked about this reacts in a particularly unhelpful way. Ultimately WP can't prevent people from advertising other people (and indeed there's at least an element of advertising in what's written by many editors in good standing, who have a tendency to write up what they like and to point up what's good about it). Further (as far as I remember), nothing in WP about notability is more than a guideline. However, WP does have the policies WP:V and WP:NOR; so far this editor has seemed to regard both as trumped by the Single Purpose. -- Hoary (talk) 22:46, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

An spa, certainly. the unblock was set up to encourage her otherwise. I am not going to go into the behavior of other parties to the editing. As usual, the matter will be judged by good behavior subsequently on all sides. DGG (talk) 23:19, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

• • Mbinebri has chosen to bring this to the ANB,at [1]., thus confirming my feelings of bad faith in his attack on the article. EyeSerene, I apologize for having this involve you. DGG (talk) 23:44, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

You only reveal your own bias by labeling the request for an outside opinion as bad faith. But I also apologize for all this to EyeSerene. Anything relating to his topic always goes too far, so I'm bowing out here.  Mbinebri  ^{talk ←} 00:10, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

To Mbineri:
I would like to ask Mbineri upfront: What do you want exactly? A good article of photographer Errol Sawyer and his father playwright Robert Earl Sawyer in Wikipedia or do you just want to delete them and therewith an important part of African-American inheritance and American History?
After you have answered this question honestly, we can have a reasonable conversation.1027E (talk) 08:50, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

To EyeSerene:
If you can tell me what to do with my precious time, you should not feel assaulted when I do the same with you. As English is not my native tongue it might sound too severe but I mean well. I asked you to look at the Robert Earl Sawyer article as he was a WW II veteran. Isn't that honorable?

GA Mentor (Allocator (C++))

Hi!

I've never reviewed a GAN before, so I'd like to check my review with somebody before I go ahead and make it "official". If you wouldn't mind, could you check my review at Talk:Allocator (C++) please :)

Cheers -- M2Ys4U ^(talk) 17:11, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Please make your reply on the article talk page :) -- M2Ys4U ^(talk) 14:20, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Brilliant, thanks for your input, it's very well appreciated. I've been keeping an eye on the article between my exams and I'm impressed with the work decltype and you have put in :) -- M2Ys4U ^(talk) 16:33, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Barbara Everard

Dear ES,

I received some more information about a past event in the career of Barbara Everard. Thus:

In 1975, with a Winston Churchill Travelling Fellowship, Barbara travelled back to Malaysia to create botanical paintings of endangered plant species, including the Rafflesia on Mt Kinabalu, and on completion of the project, was made a Lifetime Member of the Trust.

I have a copy of a letter written by the Director General, Major General, Jamie Balfour, to this effect. I don't know how to insert it here but I could send it to you separately by personal email.

Best wishes Neversoft (talk) 11:06, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

LRB

You might like this http://www.lrb.co.uk/v31/n10/runc01_.html Keith-264 (talk) 23:32, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Very interesting, thanks ;) EyeSerene^talk 07:40, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, EyeSerene. You have new messages at Talk:Allocator (C++)/GA1#Second_opinion.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

decltype (talk) 08:30, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Naked Ali

Awadewit just said she'll look at the draft of the background section later today. cheers Ling.Nut (talk) 15:04, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

E-mail

Hi Roger - I did reply, but I assume too late. Apologies for that. EyeSerene^talk 15:29, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

And I've replied to yours :)  Roger Davies ^talk 22:29, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Hey again

Hi.....*guilty face*.....I'm here to take advantage of your kindness in offering to take a second look at Brazilian battleship Minas Geraes, as I would like to nom it again at FAC. I think it is ready, but I am slightly biased. Thanks and cheers, —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 02:48, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

GA Sweeps June update

Thanks to everyone's dedicated efforts to the GA Sweeps process, a total of 396 articles were swept in May! That more than doubles our most successful month of 163 swept articles in September 2007 (and the 2 articles swept in April)! I plan to be sending out updates at the beginning of each month detailing any changes, updates, or other news until Sweeps are completed. So if you get sick of me, keep reviewing articles so we can be done (and then maybe you'll just occasionally bump into me). We are currently over 60% done with Sweeps, with just over a 1,000 articles left to review. With over 40 members, that averages out to about 24 articles per person. If each member reviews an article a day this month (or several!), we'll be completely finished. I know that may be asking for a lot, but it would allow us to complete Sweeps and allow you to spend more time writing GAs, reviewing GANs, or focusing on other GARs (or whatever else it is you do to improve Wikipedia) as well as finish ahead of the two-year mark coming up in August. I recognize that this can be a difficult process at times and appreciate your tenacity in spending time in ensuring the quality of the older GAs. Feel free to recruit other editors who have reviewed GANs in the past and might be interested in the process. The more editors, the less the workload, and hopefully the faster this will be completed. If you have any questions about reviews or the process let me know and I'll be happy to get back to you. Again, thank you for taking the time to help with the process, I appreciate your efforts! --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 18:01, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

re That was quick

Thanks for closing the GAR (finally :P, sigh.) Cirt (talk) 13:17, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Well after a long while (literally, a month :( ... ) it seems like certain editors were simply taking long posts to restate their same positions over and over - whereas other multiple editors had changed their positions to Keep. :) Thanks again for closing the GAR. Cirt (talk) 13:22, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Update: Heads up - some reason further back-and-forth comments are continuing to take place at the GAR subpage, after you closed it. Might want to do something about that? Cirt (talk) 13:32, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Okay, thank you! (But can you keep an eye on it?) :) Cirt (talk) 20:13, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much. Cirt (talk) 20:37, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks from me too, EyeSerene, for stepping in and for your well thought out closing remarks. I think all participants are now aware that the discussion is closed, and don't see any need to refactor the very few post-close comments. I am still watchlisting the page anyway.

Re Cirt's initial comment, a month is not unusual for a contested GAR. I would also note that the VeblenBot list of reassessments automatically updates once an hour. Geometry guy 20:46, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

The GAR discussion was getting stale and multiple users were restating the same thing over and over again, whilst others were changing from other positions to Keep. And as for the bot - so what? It's a wiki. Kthx, Cirt (talk) 20:53, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, what's done is done. The article has improved as a result of the GAR and is still a GA, and an issue has been identified about which we need to reach a consensus within the project, so although I appreciate the frustration that some have felt on both sides I'd hope the positives are recognised too. EyeSerene^talk 21:23, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, thanks again, EyeSerene (talk · contribs). :) Cirt (talk) 21:32, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

re: Newsletter feature

I've put something together here - what do you think? EyeSerene^talk 14:22, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Good stuff! I've incorporated it in the newsletter here. If you could give the whole thing a quick look through before I send it off for despatch, I'd be grateful :)  Roger Davies ^talk 20:29, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! That was quick. I've shunted it across to Cbrown1023 for despatch.  Roger Davies ^talk 21:16, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XXXIX (May 2009)

The May 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) 22:42, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Can I trouble you for assistance?

I created a new page for the academy today on the subject of Maintaining an article, but I could use a set of eyes to check through article for the sp&g errors and fix 'em. Can you help? TomStar81 (Talk) 23:23, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I apreciate the help. Your changes all look good, and I suppose if Cam has June I could take July. I'm hoping to some base line material in the acedemy so as to facilitate adding a link to the acedemy in the projects official welcome template; while most of our editors are not 100% new some are, and I'm hoping a well run acedemy may provide a self help venue for the noobs, which would lessen the Q&A load on us contributors/coordinators. TomStar81 (Talk) 13:35, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Operation Epsom

Hello - I'm curious why you've rolled back my edit to the grammatically incorrect split infinitive? Thanks Socrates2008 (Talk) 10:58, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Please do not bite the newcomers

Hi

I have to say I am not at all please with your recent block of this Matt Giwer fellow, blocking the user is in my opinion a controversial thing to do but Indefinitely blocking him at this point is just simply crazy. I would like to point out to you that since replying to Dougweller regarding Dougwellers concerns all this user has done is edited Dougwellers talkpage and replied to the ANI thread. I ask that you change the block duration for this user or that you remove the "Please do not bite the newcomers" image from your user page.--194x144x90x118 (talk) 14:17, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi again

I think that you have given up on that user a bit prematurely but so be it, I however as you can see from his talkpage have not, but if there really is any powder in him then I'm sure he'll familiarize himself with wikipedias rules, regulations and editing guidelines and request that he be unblocked. Anyway thank you for your reply and have a good day.--194x144x90x118 (talk) 01:45, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank god

You don't know how much that message meant to me, ES; I'm at breaking point, I really am. I feel like I need to take a long break from wiki to focus on my studies, but Corneliusseon is making that hard. I've no doubt he's acting in good faith, but it's getting me stressed out - I've mentioned this to him several times before without any real response from him. I have to go dso some research, but if you could mention the copyvio thing on his talkpage I'd be real greatful - maybe he'll listen to you. Cheers, Skinny87 (talk) 10:48, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Geez, I'm slow on catching up, sorry. Didn't realize you'd blocked him. It's a shame - I don't think he knows what he's doing is wrong. I'll offer to help him out on his talkpage. Skinny87 (talk) 10:51, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Yep, I already have; hopefully this can be sorted out quickly and without problems. Skinny87 (talk) 11:14, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Cornelius is still talking on his talkpage about copyright; I'd like him unblocked but I don't know the first thing about copyright. I've asked Moonriddengirl if she'd kindly go to his talkpage and look over what he's said. Maybe you could look as well, as the blocking admin? Thanks so much, Skinny87 (talk) 16:51, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Help

Could you have a look at my last post on the talk page of 'Gerhard Weinberg'? I can't make it fit the page - it tracks to the right for miles! Do you know how to remedy this? Thanks Keith-264 (talk) 16:28, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Am a nosey bastard :) ive poked my nose in and fixed the problem. Just dont add spaces to the front of your sentances and you will be fine.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 17:02, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

All sorted then? Cool :D (thanks Enigma, been tied up with other stuff today) EyeSerene^talk 19:10, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Yep all sorted. :)--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 12:36, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

FAC copyedit help

Hi EyeSerene. I currenly have the article Otto Becher up at FAC, but an editor has stated that it requires a copyedit. If you aren't too busy (which, knowing you, you always are ;-)), and wouldn't mind doing so, I was wondering if you would please be able to have a look at the article? If you cannot, or would rather not, that is fine; please to do feel obligated to do this. Thanks which ever way, mate. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 05:44, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

LOL. "please to do feel obligated to do this". A typo, perhaps? ;) —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 05:55, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm, perhaps... or perhaps a cunning psychological ploy. :D EyeSerene^talk 14:00, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Lol, I suppose I should actually proof read things I write ... was ment to say "please do not feel obligated to do this". Thank you so much, EyeSerene! Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 08:43, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you so much, EyeSerene! I cannot thank you enough! In regards to the two points, Becher's position as chairman of the Council of the Institute of Marine Sciences is only really mentioned in one source and isn't really expanded upon, but I will see if I can find out anything more. This is actually covered by a cite, though (cite #1, the Australian Dictionary of Bipgraphy); I made sure of that. ;-) It is also the same soure that mentions his cremation, but again isn't really specific, but I will also have a poke around for that. I don't know why, but my writing ability and prose quality seems to have suffered somewhat as of late, so I really do appreciate all of your efforts in this, mate. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 10:43, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

The taleb matters

Hello EyeSerene and thanks for last time

I am a bit concerned about how the Taleb matters See here are being handled and seeing as you are what I view to be a diplomatic administrator here on wikipedia I would like to ask you if you could please take a look at what's going on. I haven't really dug into this matter from top to bottom but what I can easily see is that a user User:IbnAmioun has made a somewhat Serious personal attacks and has also made other various personal attacks throughout the talkpage. I think that it's obvious that this latest personal attack that he made needs to be removed by an admin and that he needs to be warned regarding this type of behavior, perhaps a short block might even be in order. Another thing which is quite obvious is that User:LoveMonkey doesn't understand what the ANI page is meant for see this and is causing a disruption by repeatedly posting messages there despite having been asked by atleast three editors to stop that behavior, I think that this user needs to be warned about this on his talkpage by an admin and if that doesn't work that furhter action needs to be taken regarding him.

If you could take a look at this matter then I would be most gratefull. Regards,--194x144x90x118 (talk) 20:14, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Battle of Villers-Bocage

May i call upon your talents again, this time to copyedit the Battle of Villers-Bocage? I may add in a few extra photos, i have to sort out the external links and merge all the refs but the text i think is done.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 12:57, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks allot and i totaly agree with you the series is progressing very fast towards its goal!--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:35, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

CORNELIUSSEON

Hi. :) I've been having a talk at User talk:CORNELIUSSEON, and I think we may be making some headway. Would you mind reading through the conversation and confirming or correcting my interpretation of what's wanted from this gentleman? I'm not sure if there are extensive image issues as well as text, or if text is the only concern. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:24, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Battle of Bosworth Field

Hi, long time no see. Previously I requested and received your help to copyedit a ninja at his game. This time, I am here to ask, if you have the time, for a final look-through of the historic battle between Harry and Dick before I bring it to the perilous FAC. Is it convenient for you? Jappalang (talk) 08:12, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Ah. To clarify, I am not looking for a "copyeditor" (although that would be appreciated as well) but for someone to have a casual look, like an ordinary reader, and determine if something is wrong with the article (prose and content) or not. Do not fret if it is inconvenient for you. Jappalang (talk) 08:44, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

More pairs of eyes would only help improve the article. Could you take a look through by it by this weekend? I was hoping to bring it to FAC in the next week or so. Jappalang (talk) 01:40, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, commanders led "battles" in the wars those days. However, I feel the jargon can be confusing, especially to first time readers (and a bitch to avoid repetitions in language as well), so I used "groups" or "divisions" if possible. Jappalang (talk) 12:26, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Are you planning to replace "groups" with "battles" with a definition given, or a footnote sort of thing for "groups", stating that the archaic term is "battles"? Jappalang (talk) 13:17, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I think sparingly should be fine. Jappalang (talk)

Thank you for doing a marvelous job! "Erstwhile gaoler"... why did I not think of that?! Jappalang (talk) 05:39, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Scotland rules returns ...

... as Meechan1314 (talk · contribs), as patriotic as ever. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 11:38, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

The name and single edit are enough to tell. Anyway, has moved to Historian of Scotland (talk · contribs). Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 19:42, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Request for mentorship (WP:GAN) - again! :-)

Hi, I'm back at work on the GA project and am on my third review now. I would appreciate it if you took a look at the draft here before I post it on the article's talk page. In particular, I'm not too sure if the article satisfies the focus requirements - although I wonder if the sections can be adequately summarised, given the nature of the article. Please provide your input on this - although it might merit a fail, I would like to give the editors at least one chance to improve it. Regards, SBC-YPR (talk) 14:38, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Many thanks, yet again :-) I failed the article, as I felt the issues were too many to be resolved in a hold period. Instead, I suggested a re-nom after a comprehensive rewrite. BTW, if you're free, you could go through my second review - which passed after a prolonged hold. I intend to be quite active on the GA project from now on, and I'm looking to review an article every month. I was wondering if it would be asking for too much for you to be my permanent mentor and help me out with my subsequent GA reviews. Regards, SBC-YPR (talk) 13:17, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Well said

here. KillerChihuahua^?!? 19:14, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Heh, thanks :P EyeSerene^talk 19:40, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

GA Mentor

Hi there. I've just been to the Good Article Nominations page where I'd been planning to nominate an article, but gulped it back down when I saw the list. I thought seeing as I have a vague understanding of the English language and an interest in getting things right, I might try and help clear the backlog. Seeing as this would be my first go I'm looking for a bit of mentoring though (and you have the friendliest user page on the mentor list!) I was wondering if I could pick an article (maybe not until after the weekend), review it and then submit my review to you for... er... reviewing.. before I post it up? I've just finished an article so it'll be nice to objectively read a couple for a break. Cheers in advance Ranger Steve (talk) 18:48, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Hehe, and I thought you might have posted at Talk:Military History because you'd seen my name on your talkpage! I've gotta admit, I'd always assumed the various projects on wikipedia might slightly exclusive 'invite only' clubs, but looking more closely at MIL I note you can just add your name to the list. But I'm flattered by the fact I have been invited nonetheless and I'll be bold and add myself to it. Thankyou.

Thanks for the offer of assistance too, I'll pick a (light) article soon and crack on with it and get back to you with a review to review. Thanks for the reply! Ranger Steve (talk) 21:38, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the replies at Wikimilitary Eyeserene (I've had much better input there than other pages I've posted questions at), and thanks for the welcome too. I have started on a GA review (honest), I actually picked one yesterday but some one had already started it and forgot to add their name to the list! Grrr. Will have a review for you by the end of the week. Thanks again Ranger Steve (talk) 18:56, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Hey, Steve's reviewing one of the articles I nominated! :) —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 04:03, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Heh, instant fail shouldn't be too problematic then ;) EyeSerene^talk 09:08, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the above. ;) He hasn't begun a review as of yet; should I give him a poke? —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 03:44, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

See below. EyeSerene^talk 08:57, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

Thanks for blocking me. :( (JoeLoeb (talk) 00:38, 27 June 2009 (UTC))

Yeah, me too! You're a bad, bad person! ;) --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 18:39, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

No comment:P EyeSerene^talk 16:20, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to waste your time with this, but JoeLoeb doesn't seem to be getting the message: http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/User_talk:Asgardian

Regards Asgardian (talk) 03:43, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Template:Infobox Bosnian War

I don't mean to be nuisance, but could you help me by pointing out the correct course of action in this specific situation? On Template:Infobox Bosnian War, User:Kruško Mortale has not participated in the discussion at all, yet will revert any attempt to restore the original version (that excludes his nationalist POV). This kind of situation, particularly the "nationalist POV" part, is what I have to deal with non-stop trying to work on the Balkans-related articles of Wikipedia. At best, as on the Bosnian language article, the other guy will leave a brief message or two. Again, I may not be considered impartial, but these guys are indeed Balkans nationalist POV-pushers. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 18:43, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Please, DIREKTOR is not telling you the truth. I gave my explanation in the talk page. The problem is, I found him not telling the truth when he tried to include false information regarding Washington Agreement in Bosnian War [2][3]. When I provided Washington Agreement in PDF, he realized I caught him. Since then, he is trying to present me as a nationalist ?! Kruško Mortale (talk) 19:35, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

How cheap, I was "telling the truth" at the time (an hour ago). Yes you did mysteriously appear on the talkpage after revert-warring for days without a word. Uncanny, it was just after you noticed this post... :)

• My post here - 18:43 [4]
• Kruško's appearance on Template talk:Infobox Bosnian War - 18:54 [5]

--DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 19:41, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

You're wrong again. I explained the course of the war on 14:33, 25 June 2009: [6] - improved Belligerents (first it was Croatia - Serbia against Bosnia, then Croatia-Bosnia against Serbia), later to continue to improve commander, as this list (I temporary removed) is totally false. Everyone can follow that discussion and see the truth. Kruško Mortale (talk) 19:49, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

LoL, you're confusing edit-warring with discussion. Its an edit summary! A statement of The Truth^TM. That's not a discussion. The only way to reply is to undo you and write another edit summary. You must be joking... --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 19:51, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

The point is you got my reply and knew my opinion as you kept calling my "nationalist". Kruško Mortale (talk) 20:15, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I got your "reply" and answered your "reply" on the talkpage. I suppose I should've realized you only communicate by revert-warring...
Sorry 4 the squabble on your talkpage, ES... I'm off :( --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 20:29, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Btw ES, you might want to know that checkuser has just confirmed my suspicions that the guy is a sockpuppet. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 04:57, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

LoL, even though you missed it, the post actually served a purpose: it amazingly got Kruško to start discussing (not that it mattered in the end, but still :). Regards --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 07:27, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Some help would be appreciated

Hallo EyeSerene, sorry to trouble you, I'd appreciate help with a problem about possible sockpuppetry to evade an indefinite block and continue disruptive editing.

A while back (March/April) there was a problem of disruptive editing of a somewhat indirect kind over at "Orbit of the Moon", the March/April diffs are at Shaheenjim diffs here but it seemed to go away by itself when the editor concerned (Shaheenjim) disappeared: it turned out he had worked his way into an indefinite block (entirely due to his activities elsewhere) and due to his complete refusal to get the point about what the trouble was.

Now another user has popped up (Geologician) with about exactly the same disruptive editing/arguing style as Shaheenjim: he makes or proposes nonsense-edits and doesn't get the point from several editors who do. Even though Geologician is not a new user, I strongly suspect this is the same Shaheenjim under another name.

(The following characteristics of Geologician's recent edits in Talk:Orbit of the Moon seem to match what is described in WP:DISRUPT and the linked pages under the headings 'tendentious', 'cannot satisfy WP:Verifiability', 'does not engage in consensus-building', 'refusal to get the point', and Geologician also very much resembles Shaheenjim's style: Recent diffs are at Geologician diffs .)

I've done two things:

(1) left a request in what I hope are sufficiently courteous terms at Geologician's talk page to ask him to reconsider his editing behaviour (with pointers given to character of recent edits and the relation they seem to have to WP:DISRUPT) and to ask him to edit constructively,

(2) applied to start a sockpuppet investigation.

I hope in relation to this that I've used the procedure correctly, but would be very grateful to have your eye on it and help to know if I did anything wrong or incomplete: the relevant pages/entries are at

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Shaheenjim and talk:Sockpuppet investigations (where the screens asked me to post a notice of the request page since a relevant bot was down.)

With thanks and apologies I hope that what I've done does not turn out to have been inappropriate Terry0051 (talk) 01:49, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

11th Airborne

1. Guerillas was used by the sources, though if you think changing it to something else would be better, then go ahead 2. The only thing I disagree with in that edit was Eisenhower was changed to Marshall; that's wrong and I've changed it back.

Thanks for all your work, Skinny87 (talk) 17:11, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Eh, I've gone off wiki atm, but I still keep an eye on my articles. Skinny87 (talk) 18:25, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for all your hard work, it's very much appreciated. Skinny87 (talk) 09:31, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

The front page

I just checked out a hit counter and saw that the Epsom article was hit 76,000 times yesterday! It manages around 5,000 a month usually. The front page really is a marvel lol--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 09:54, 1 July 2009 (UTC)