Jump to content

User talk:EyeSerene

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 85.176.149.211 (talk) at 18:48, 25 January 2010 (→trolling?: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Thanks for School Rumble

Can't see anything major out-of-place.

The Manga and Anime BarnSakura Award
For thanks in your exhaustive work on School Rumble, especially the anime's reception section.陣内Jinnai 22:13, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

confession

I must confess I regard Larry Sanger as an animal not a human being so yes a topic ban on Sanger would be okay. --Trulexicon (talk) 09:42, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

History of terrorism

Hi. I see you have been trying to keep things in check at this article. Unless I'm very much mistaken, an anon. IP that was recently blocked is back with a different tag and is reinserting swathes of text without so much as a nod to consensus. Could you keep an eye out please. I don't want an unfamiliar Admin coming by and drawing simplistic conclusions as I try to restore previous content. Best. RashersTierney (talk) 18:00, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Think this is an editor that is deliberately hiding his/her history; possibly also edited here as LSG280709 and under other identities. I have never initiated a Sock investigation before, but there seems to be a long-term pattern of disruptive editing from the same source. RashersTierney (talk) 18:19, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Another pain in the butt CE request

Hi EyeSerene, how are you mate? Sorry to bug/attempt to burden you with such a request again, but I was wondering if you would be willing to copyedit Walter Peeler for me within the next week or so? I have just vastly expanded it from a stub, and have posted it up for both GAN and ACR, and have hopes of taking it to FAC after that. Re-reading the article, I think it could do with a bit of a textual polish/massage before I undertake the latter. As ever, if you are too busy, do not wish to, or are just plain sick of such requests, do not feel pressured or obligated to do so. :) Thanks mate. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 14:25, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just happened to spot this after I started my ce of the article while I review it for GAN, so you may be off the hook, Eye, but of course feel free to join in if you feel so inclined...! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:34, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Lol, thanks for the acceptance, Eye, and for starting the ce, Ian, I really appreciate it. :) Lol, I did happen to notice the ANI-like posts/disputes on your talk page, and was tempted to tell the buggers to cool off and stop arguing on your talk page. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 11:53, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Heh, thanks. I'll have a proofread after Ian's done his stuff then, if that's ok. EyeSerenetalk 17:04, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, Ian has passed the article as GA and I think finished with his tweaks, so whenever you're ready, Eye. ;-) Thanks mate, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 04:01, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Eye. The article has just passed its ACR, so whenever you are ready and willing, so is the article. ;-) Thanks for this, mate. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 23:47, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Eye. Sorry to be such a pushy pain about this, but, if at all possible, would you be able to do/start the ce by, or on, 10 December? The reason I'm being such a pain is that I wish to nominate the article for FAC on that date so it can, hopefully, be promoted by the end of the month. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 13:33, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Don't fret if you cannot to it right away; RL comes first. I don't mind it if is done in small installments, so don't worry and think it has to be done all at once. :) Again, thanks very much for this, mate. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 01:00, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much, Eye! I had decided to hold off on the FAC until the ce was in process, or done, as I figured it was be easier and the article in better shape. Now that it is done, I'll have a read through and make any further tweaks, if necessary, then it will be off to FAC! As a token of my appreciation, I humbly present you with this barnstar:

File:Allaroundamazingbarnstar3.png All Around Amazing Barnstar
I humbly present the All Around Amazing Barnstar to EyeSerene for his all around amazing, yet undying, efforts in a multitude of facets on Wikipedia, which includes, but is not limited to: brilliance and institutive leadership as a Coordinator of the Military history WikiProject; an amazingly adept article copyeditor; a source of immense knowledge in multiple areas; and a great Administrator! Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 00:19, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the pointers, Eye. Regarding the quagmire sentence, I can see your point and have changed it back. :) I've left "lobbed" for the moment, as I have seen it utilised in several professional publications and think it is one of the better words for this case, though will consider tweaking it. As for the final point, I re-added it to point out that's what happened/occured after this stage, if that makes sense. Thanks, mate. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 09:25, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hope the class wasn't too much trouble! Again, thanks for the pointers. I will re-add the first and tweak the second. I removed a bit from the lead, including the point you mentioned, as it seemed rather a little long, and I've had a long lead be picked on at FAC before. FAC can always be a little fickle; as Forrest Gump said: "Life is like a box of chocolates, you never know what you are going to get." I think this is the perfect quote to describe the FAC process sometimes. ;-) Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 11:37, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OMG! Just reading that made me want to bash my head against the wall! Lol. Hopefully, there will be better luck next time. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 11:59, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Lol, I should be able to have a bit of a look over the article within the next few days. You know what I find hilariously ironic? The person who stated the lead is not detailed enough for the Battle of Villers-Bocage is the same person who said that the lead of Harry Murray was too long! Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 01:29, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Eye. Sorry I haven't had a look at the article yet; it has been rather busy couple of weeks! I should be able to have a look in the next couple of days, though, but don't hesitate to remind me if I haven't do so by next week. :) Anyway, Merry Christmas and Happy New Year, mate. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 06:07, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Devonshire House Preparatory School

Please could you tell me how to make the article better and up to wiki standards? Sorry I've been slow to understand how to make a good wiki entry. I would like learn how to make a good article .... so far I have looked at other articles for similar schools for ideas and approaches so I am sorry if some of those other articles have given me the wrong approach. I really do appreciate your help and would like to change the article to make it better. Best regards.

Sorry for the late reply, had a bit of a busy day

I was trying to stick up for an editor from what seemed to be degoratory attack based on where he/she came from. Nationalism or The Plague as Moreschi calls, shouldn't be used as a basis for judging the value of an editors contribution to an encyclopedia IMO. Recently some editors of that disposition, have made these kind of derogatory collectivist comments, first on North Americans and then Australian editors regaring their contribution to British articles. Suggesting "ignorance" or a different "moral compass" if they dare voice a position contrary to regional nationalism. From my experience, when the England article was getting made to a GA, an Aussie was one of the main people helping out and a Canadian was doing the review, so I felt those kind of degoratory characterisations of them, based on where they live did not seem to be appropriate for a worldwide project. - Yorkshirian (talk) 20:31, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The excuses for trolling User:Sarah777 and User:RTG (here & here) should be good too. Daicaregos (talk) 20:56, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm pretty sure pointing out that there isn't actually an "Anglo-American Imperialism" conspiracy on Wikipedia doesn't fall under the definition of "trolling", or as Sarah777 put it in the section which I initially replied "Wiki (En) is a pawn in the hands of Anglo-American Imperialism". If you must insist on riffling back through my contributions for straws, I suggest following the WP:NPA at least. Your excuse for the derogatory comments on people who live in North America, would be good in the mean time. Perhaps more useful than attempting to canvass. - Yorkshirian (talk) 21:57, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think you get a fair idea of the kind of person Yorkshirian is from these WP:PA edits (cited by User:Daicaregos at User talk:Yorkshirian during the last Yorkshirian appeal against blocking):

User:Daicaregos has in the past proposed mentoring as a solution to Yorkshirian's incessant bad behaviour. However, I feel that that point was passed a long, long time ago. When on earth are Admin's going to act? This guy is just making a fool out of the entire Wikipedia project.

The worst nationalist "Plague" at Wikipedia is the plague of mindless British nationalists, at all levels, up to and including Admin level. User:Yorkshirian is just an minor example of the type. --Mais oui! (talk) 23:02, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What relevence are these diffs from August to the discussion at hand? While the sentimentalism and claims of "racialism" and "baiting" are laughable in themselves. Calling non-collectivists "mindless" and claiming admins are "British nationalists" is hardly good form. - Yorkshirian (talk) 23:20, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Its true, Yorkshirian doesn't know how to say "That's biased" without saying "And your mother". The accusation against Sarah777 and Daicaregos speaks for itself (or maybe that's just a tip of an iceberg, not to my knowledge). Sarahs conspiracy accusation (to the world at large from her own talkpage) was comic and Daicaregos shouldn't have said "I will adjust my view of North Americans over this!" (I can almost hear Americans who read this and go "Aaaa shaddap!") But, Yorkshirian shouldn't be telling tales and defending his/her *impeccable* behavior right now. Yorkshirian should be studying the difference between being comically frustrated or momentarily rude and being persistently debasive, derogatory, and callous without appology. The difference between rectifying and inflaming so come on Yorkshirian, who is going to find trouble in pursueing this? Sarah777 for being Republican? Daicaregos for being Welsh? Do you really need to protect Neil Kinnock from being Welsh or Northern Ireland from being a country? Have you uncovered something sinister for this admin to deal with? What exactly is this admin going to do about what you are complaning here? No offence, EyeSerene... I am assuming that Sarah777 and Daicaregos don't even get ticked off here whereas Yorkshirian is dancing around being barred by pursuing this. ~ R.T.G 12:16, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No offence taken, everyone's welcome here :) As I noted above, I've seen posts from a number of editors ranging from misfired attempts at humour to inflammatory to outright paranoid. At the moment I'd put Yorkshirian somewhere in the 'lower inflammatory' section of that scale; it's unintentional on his part, I'm sure, but what some will brush off, others will find offensive. The same goes for others in this dispute; the end result of misjudging when/when not and what/what not to post is still pissed-off editors. I'm not intending to block anyone at the moment, although Yorkshirian is well aware that he needs to be careful about manufacturing ammunition that will be used against him. As I quoted recently on an ANI thread dealing with another nationalist editor's long-overdue indefblock, "Every place on earth has nationalists; they are the dupes of demagogues, the tools of conquerors, and a great pestilence upon Wikipedia. Write a thousand good words on an important but neglected figure, and a nationalist will show up to argue over the spelling of his name; his birthplace, ancestry, ethnicity, or category; all in a tone of moral outrage. Look at the "bright" side: they keep our friends in the war industry employed. When some day earth is hidden in its final radioactive dust-shroud, their ghosts will declare: it's not so bad, they got what they deserved. Let the sane among you ignore them, and be good citizens of all of mankind, rather than just an angry splinter of it." (from WP:OWB). Good advice. EyeSerenetalk 15:26, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Most will see that as a call for tolerance, which there is no mistake that is what it is, but some I fear as a justification to an anti-nazi fight where they select the Nazis with those generally appreciative of their own nations to be in some target line. I wouldn't like to be watching while one slaughters another and says something like, "You are inferior, you were born into it, your race will never be socially acceptable and if you love your nation you should be insulted because I am against the Nazis who slaughtered those they thought of as inferior, born into it, would never be socially acceptable and thought they should be insulted as they loved the nation they were from." That would be a terrifyingly ironic outcome, if the imagination perceived promoting the persecution of Nazis and determined Nazis to be any tolerant of their own nation. If you can love a car, a pair of shoes, a love song somebody wrote, you should be guilty of nothing and neither should your love of your thing be any more than equal to anyone elses, and similarly, the same should go for a constitution, a flag, a boat, or even a local elected official who gets homeless off the streets and gives them something to do or gets racially divided people to open up a school together, that is what a nation is not just a fight against another one, you love yours and Harry-Boo loves his too and for those sort of reasons, he should. Where there is two views they should be anticipated and levelled out rather than fought over until only one man stands. The only anarchy which could exist with zero nation lives in a hut in a field and trusts nobody so if anyone is tagging themself an anti-nation-alist, rather than a tolerant and understanding soul, let's see you editing some anarchy articles. I had to respond because, for anyone who read EyeSerenes quote and saw a big struggle, you should read again. GLuck. ~ R.T.G 20:07, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nationalism doesn't simply mean a respect for a land or culture, that is patriotism or otherwise allophilia an entirely different and healthy thing. Nationalism as a modern political movement derives from the Jacobin French Revolution, essentially the materialistic-naturalist twin of Bolshevism: secular religion. If somebody is patriotic or an allophile then they perhaps could be useful for an encyclopedia like Wikipedia, because they would have a drive to write quality, well researched, evenly weighted articles on a subject. A nationalist can only bring conflict, because they are attached to a stiff dogmatism, x vs. y, usually victim based and feign offense if anybody dares to present information contrary to their worldview; most of which is derived from mythology pieced together for political convinence after the French Revolution. What EyeSerene said was spot on IMO, I agree with whoever wrote that 100%. - Yorkshirian (talk) 14:02, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry EyeSerene. No Yorkshire, "nationalism" is "nationalism" and it is pretty well summed up on Wikipedia, Nationalism scratch that, it is actually saying that nationalism is only derogatory and a beleif in superiority, well not where I come from, quite the opposite. All that other ball-hopping is just things closely related to nationalism that you are relying on to justify some attacks. It's a classic form of denialism - you reason. You are producing study and research to explain your behaviour. That's what a psychiartrist does and a psychiatrist will not condone, so, end your justification process now, thanks. You dragged me through the muck kiddo without any knowledge of me whatsoever. Want to debate your expression of justified anti-nationalism? I want to see an answer that suggests you conceed your *philosophy* because you are certainly in the wrong even if a nationalist is some sort of space rover, you Yorkshirian, have something to conceed not something to philosophise, thanks again. ~ R.T.G 14:58, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Some folk need to read this Nationalism#Radical_or_revolutionary_nationalism ~ R.T.G 15:19, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Is this all those things you are describing African_National_Congress#History? ~ R.T.G 15:24, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting though it is, I'm not sure that it's helpful for this thread to turn into a philosophical debate about the thin lines between various 'isms' :) EyeSerenetalk 15:49, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, I think I've had it with Yorkshirians racism because he or she is not prepared to own up, has reasoned out with him or herself, and from that perspective has done nothing wrong. If that is the case I should have pursued it already because a lot of it was aimed directly at me. Yorkshirian edits articles for which the only affinity seems to be a pursuit of knowledge on various royalty, only produces minor edits and templates for those articles, and pursues a line of commentary which is not only intolerantly biased against anything non-royalist, is downright racist and offensive using attacks related to effeminism, racism, superiority, nationalism, republicanism, cabal and general bad faith far beyond finding and replacing possible bias with neutrality which I like to do myself in the most insistant ways possible at times, loud words and disruption but Yorkshirian is being racist and pursuant of POV with little enough legs to stand on. Wikipedia is NPOV and intolerant of racism. I am going to gather diffs and look for help to turn Yorkshirian away because that is the only thing that Yorkshirian seems possible to change. I am all for royals being royals but nobody should accept abuse. ~ R.T.G 18:59, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I said I agree with the comment that EyeSerene posted and pointed out why rationally IMO nationalism (called "The Plague" on Wikipedia) is so counterproductive in action. This site isn't here for you to hysterical attack people (see WP:NPA), with the rather frequent habit of newspeak libeling people as "racist" (like you did to admin Rodhullandemu not long ago). Besides that it is difficult to make any sense out of your posts most of the time. So far as I can see, you're "offended" that we have a WP:NPOV policy that dogmatic poltiical nationalism happens to conflict with? And? This does not make Wikipedia "waysist". This is an encyclopedia., neutrality is central to reliability - Yorkshirian (talk) 23:31, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It took me more than 3 hours because I looked at more or less everything since Sept 24th except mainspace which I cursory examined already and England/GA2 talk so it will take longer again to study them tomorrow and I will let you know how it is looking when we might show you some support for your neutrality and undying "w"ighteousness, including wether or not I labelled Rodhullandemu a racist and wether you have history of lying about what editors post about each other, Okay Sockshirian? A quote from the wikt "(obsolete) To judge; to estimate; to appraise The Earth, which I esteem unable to reflect the rays of the Sun." Goodnight EyeSerene whoever you are. ~ R.T.G 01:51, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Are you actually accusing EyeSerene of being my sock? You're wrong. As for lying, here you are attacking admin Rodhullandemu, where you say to him "you are supportive of racist hatred". The admin tells you to disist and warns you that these kind of libelous attacks are not tolerated on Wikipedia. I suggest you take his advice. In a slightly related note; EyeSerene, while I realise this comes with the territory of an open database project and editors are bound to attract all sorts, RTG seems to be stepping over the WP:STALK line, well into territory which feels creepy to me. Is there any way to get across that this is hardly "normal"? I think its clear that in this discussion I have replied cordially to you and yet here is this guy levelling serious defamation against me, by accusing me of being a "racist" (not a libel I take lightly, as an opponent of collectivist ethnocentric chauvinism). - Yorkshirian (talk) 02:34, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(←) This has gone beyond the point of being constructive. RTG, your latest interjections are not helpful; the original purpose of this thread was Yorkshirian's explanation for his comments that had upset other editors, and I think this has been examined in enough detail that everyone has had a chance to let off a little steam (which is probably better done in this informal venue that at somewhere like ANI). It might be helpful if I cross-post part of the reply I've just left Daicaregos, so we're all clear about how I see this situation:

Yes, Yorkshirian is under an editing restriction, and yes, I'll block him if he insists on making sweeping inflammatory statements about other editors based on their nationality. However, he wasn't the only one - some would find your comment re the moral compass of Americans equally offensive, and other editors have been slinging mud too. I accept that much of it may have been friendly, light-hearted banter, but in a text-only medium interpretation can be difficult and comments don't always translate the way they were intended to. I've taken all that into account, which is why I'm not blocking at this time; I feel it would be unfair to penalise Yorkshirian alone when, as with most disputes, there is more than one side involved. Yorkshirian has shown that he can be baited, and because he's on a final warning it would be easy for editors who wanted him gone to provoke him into an intemperate response that leads to his final block. I'm not for one minute suggesting that's what has gone on here, but I see my duty as an admin as protecting not only Wikipedia but also, to some extent, protecting editors from themselves. Of course, the only solution is for Yorkshirian not to bite but to confine his comments to edits, not editors; I sincerely hope he (and others) will do this in future, as eventually I or any other admin will be left with no choice but to apply sanctions.

EyeSerenetalk 10:10, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well look, I do not see the explaination so I am going to try and force you through diffs to impose a sanction on anything related to Gallic Descendency because it is Yorkshirians pet hate, from the shrinks field day position of Anglo-Irish-Roman, and all contribution in that area since Sept 24th and long before is at least ill-informed and at times purposefully bigoted. That's not acceptable where I am from or where he/she is from either. I will see you later I guess *sheesh* ~ R.T.G 15:07, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ANI notice

Hello, EyeSerene. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The discussion is about the topic Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Disruptive_editing_by_Off2riorob_after_multiple_extensions_of_good_faith. Thank you. --Cirt (talk) 01:07, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Increased block time

Greetings. I increased the block time for the Waylon Jennings vandal that you blocked earlier. I hope you don't mind, but he's a long-term disruption on that article and related topics. I can guarantee that if you block for 31 hours, he'll be back 33 hours later. I think he uses an alarm clock. I generally block for 6 months at a time now at the first offense, watchlisting the user-talk pages in the (so far non-existent) event that a "real" editor requests an unblock. Joyous! | Talk 22:09, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lauraandemilyinart

Hi. You just blocked this editor for vandalism, but there seems to be a small inconsistency. At the editor's talk page it says indefinite block, but the log says three hours. Favonian (talk) 18:40, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:Zod1981

I see you warned above person before, he appears to be a sockpuppet vandalizing pages/edit warring, and another account of his was already blocked. Kindly review this.

Starmoney (talk) 06:06, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Manners

What you give is what you get. Block me and be damned.Keith-264 (talk) 07:41, 27 November 2009 (UTC) Physician heal thyself.Keith-264 (talk) 09:34, 27 November 2009 (UTC) I've told you where you (and anyone else) stands with me, the rest is up to you. Good luck.Keith-264 (talk) 11:30, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Come on guys, chill :) --EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 14:03, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Heh, positively frosty here, Enigma :) Unpleasant duty done, and as far as I'm concerned the matter's closed. I regard Keith's contributions and insight very highly, and hope he'll continue to share these re article content. EyeSerenetalk 14:23, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

V-B

Thanks very much for the kind words and the award. As for the review, this one has baffled me; considering how much attention the battle gets and everyone seems to love it ... they dont want to review it lol--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 10:52, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you dont mind, could you take a look at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Battle of Villers-Bocage/archive2 and the comments raised by User:Tony1 please.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 08:51, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stoke-on-Trent

Many thanks for the offer EyeSerene, any help is much appreciated. I've pretty much finished the article as far as my sources will allow me to do so, and I think an image of the statue would help finish it off (There is a standard image of Baskeyfield himself floating around on the web, but I haven't been able to find anything that says whether its a personal or military photo, so I'm reluctant to upload it). But obviously, PLEASE don't go to too much trouble for it – Christmas can be stressful enough! Ranger Steve (talk) 18:45, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please can you unblock user

please can unblock user khuda hafiz please he want disruptive editing never please.

please

thanks you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Suban allah (talk • contribs) 18:48, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vancouver

WikiProject Vancouver
You have been invited to participate in Operation Schadenfreude to restore the article Vancouver back to featured article status.

- Dear FA Team member, we could use your help if you're available. Mkdwtalk 06:46, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:Wikiwikiwoowikiwoo

Hello again EyeSerene. Seeing as how this user resumed his vandalizing after your block, and since I could not find a single constructive contribution in their history, I have issued an indefinite block. Just thought I'd let you know. Regards, decltype (talk) 08:34, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ANI Notifications

Dear EyeSerene, I just wanted to drop you a kind note and let you know that you forgot to inform an involved editor in the thread that you opened on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Don't worry! It's been take care of it. Just wanted to gently remind you to make sure to do so when and if you open a new ANI thread in the future. Thanks!!! Basket of Puppies 19:08, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, EyeSerene. I am referring to this thread on ANI. You created the thread but I didn't see a notice on the editor's talk page regarding the thread. Basket of Puppies 19:24, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please accept my full and complete apology! I am so sorry! I didn't look carefully enough and I feel really bad about that! I am going to get a cup of coffee now. Basket of Puppies 19:36, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, sorry to bother you...

...but could you take a look at this new user: Corvettecrazy262? He's been disruptively editing a number of articles in the past few days, maybe a couple of weeks, and despite a ton of warnings on his userpage, and attempts to debate issues with him on article talkpages, he still continues. I'm hoping that an Admin taking a look at the issue might help. Cheers, Skinny87 (talk) 09:03, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome response

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

Do you know what this is?

Hi, this is a slightly odd question, but I wasn't sure where to ask it, perhaps you know? What is French Republican Calendar/Y12 and its companions in Category:French Republican Calendar templates? Are they articles, templates or something else entirely? I ran into them while reading up on the calendar and I'm a bit confused. Any idea?--Jackyd101 (talk) 20:54, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't really asking with the aim of deleting them, I was just wondering whether someone had gotten their titles confused or they were some sort of odd image that had wound up in th wrong place. Thanks for taking a look.--Jackyd101 (talk) 13:11, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Villers Bocage tank casualties

I think you will need to provide very precise citations for these. There is a great deal of difference between a tank which is "knocked out" and one which is "destroyed". In the horrible but precise later American definition, a tank which suffers a "mobility kill" i.e. is halted through its engine being disabled or tracks broken, or a "mission kill" i.e. armament, radios or sights disabled, can be considered "knocked out". In most cases these can be recovered and repaired in workshops, or even fixed in situ. A destroyed tank is a write-off, though sometimes parts can be salvaged. (The usual cause is a "brew-up" where ammunition ignites and effectively incinerates the interior.) HLGallon (talk) 13:20, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'm not entirely happy with taking those out. It was done, somewhat experimentally, in response to an editor's objection on the article's FAC, but I've now reinstated them. I think it's something where a case can be made for using military 'jargon'; there aren't too many synonyms with the same implications as "knocked out". EyeSerenetalk 15:00, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply

Hi EyeSerene, I've replied to the comment you left on my talk page. Also Ernest appears to be continuing under 219.88.60.209. XLerate (talk) 11:06, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Gibraltar's Mediation

Hi, Eyeserene. I write here due to you being the administrator who blocked Gibraltar's article. There was a discussion on AN/I, where I addressed to you reasoning that in the case of this particular article, both parties engaged in debate weren't in equal positions (I provided this information as well), as I felt that one party being comfortable with the current content of an indefinitely fully-protected article has no incentive to resolve any argument about it.

I received no response, so I thought you disagreed with the statement above. However, after a week of indefinite block, mediation is at risk. May I ask you to speak with Atama頭, the mediator, and to read the talk page since at least 01 of December? It will be time consuming, though, as we've written the equivalent of 15 pages since then, but some advice on how to avoid the impasse we've reached and/or a third opinion are badly needed, in my opinion. Again, thanks for your time. Cremallera (talk) 15:54, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the input. I quite liked m:The Wrong Version, although I am not yet sure about you being a radical feminist, a zionist or a bolshevik instead ;) We should converse more often in order to form myself an opinion. Cheers. Cremallera (talk) 21:50, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ANI

Hello, EyeSerene. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding a user you blocked indefinitely who has since been unblocked by another administrator. The thread is User:Pickbothmanlol. Thank you. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 02:23, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yongle the Great

Yongle the Great (talk · contribs) is unrelenting in his block evasion. Multiple IPs, a couple of account, the latest this am after he posted from an IP address to my talk page 'Please stop'. He then created Albert Frederick Arthur George (talk · contribs). Perpetual Happiness (talk · contribs), 123.23.250.182 (talk · contribs) 123.23.253.192 (talk · contribs), 123.23.253.111 (talk · contribs) (the account posting to my talk page) and others. The IP addresses seem to be non-portable addresses from Vietnam Posts and Telecommunications. I don't know what can be done except deal with the edits and block the accounts. Where possible I am adding references and trying to improve articles. Some are clear redirects, eg Hongwu Period which just said "The Hongwu period (洪武時代, Hongwu jidai), or Hongwu era, denotes the 30-year reign of the Hongwu Emperor, running, in the Julian calendar, from 23 January 1368 to 24 June 1398. This period was called the Rule of Hongwu (洪武之治)." which I redirected to Hongwu Emperor (maybe someday that article will require a split, but not until the content builds up enough to need it. Any suggestions? Dougweller (talk) 09:33, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seems he had an old account and has been getting around semi-protection, see [1] and comment if you are around please. Dougweller (talk) 17:14, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nishkid64 blocked his IP range for 5 days this am (he came on with another sock account). I think we need a category for his socks! Dougweller (talk) 16:34, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lehr Lehr old chap

To be brutally honest I only made those changes across the various articles because I was bored in work XD

I think your right however, Panzerlehr/Panzer-Lehr should be an acceptable variant of Panzerlehrdivision and I have seen various sources use this; I shall revert my edits later.

What has me however, I don’t believe I have seen any source use panzerlehrdivision; they mostly seem to plonk dashes between each of the words and am thinking this the version we should also use. I mean even Helmut Ritgen spells it like this on the front cover of his book iirc and am sure he served with the division – unless this is a case of the German being anglicised.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 15:53, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Checking out various stuff on the net; re-enactment groups, forums, modellers etc (yes am bored in work again!) everyone use the terms Panzer Lehr Division, Panzer-Lehr-Division, Panzer Lehr, and Panzer-Lehr.
One forumite, from a few years, ago made mention of the current German army having a formation called the Panzerlehrbrigade 9; what I conclude is that Panzerlehrdivision is probably correct but only in German, all English sources use one of the above terms.
I will check out the sources I have and find out what the majority of them call the division tonight, if I remember, and get back with what term is most used etc – off the top of my head I know that Taylor uses Panzer-Lehr.
Considering the other articles are not called the likes of 1.Panzerdivision do you think it would be wise to move the page to Panzer-Lehr-Division and then note in the lead that in German it is Panzerlehrdivision; followed-up by changing the Normandy articles to suit the new title?--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 10:09, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Doing a quick check through all the sources i have that i think would have any of the 3 variants in i have came up with the below:
Those calling the division: Panzer-Lehr-Division (4)
Hubert Meyer, Kurt Meyer, Daniel Taylor, Ludovic Fortin.
Those calling the division: Panzer Lehr Division (14)
Carlo D'Este, Patrick Delaforce, Major Ellis, John Buckley, Colonel Stacey, Simon Trew and Stephen Badsey, Lloyd Clark, Anthony Beevor, Chester Wilmot, Stephen Ashley Hart, Ken Ford, George Forty, Michael Reynolds.
There may be the odd few more sources that mention the division but i think the issue is mostly resolved; in the English language the second term is the most used and the current one - never.
I will most this on the actual article at some point this week.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 09:15, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers for the heads up and advise :) Am not to sure about blocking talkpage access; sure i have seen this guy, along with British and Irish nationalists on a vote, and a bunch of other people argue and vandalise like mad but ive also seen positive edits made; answering questions, notes about the edits they have made etc So maybe as a punitive mesasure agaisnt abusers of the good faith system?
I will post on the Panzerlehrdivision talk page and see if i get any feedback; i will make the changes in the normandy articles we have dealt with however.
Also i will send Roger or Maralia a message to see if they can give the article the once over. Cheers :)--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 11:46, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ive left a message with Maralia but for the live of me cant think of Roger's full username; couldnt share it could you lol.
As for the talkpage thing, i it would become more and more restritive and a move that would lead to imposing on the core principle of the wiki. That or it would just push people to register an account to vandalise :p
Thought that was the guy, i got as far as the golfer before i concluded i couldnt remember what his username was lol. Ill leave him alone for now then since i have already asked Maralia and the fact he is overworked.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 14:51, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
PS, i have posted on the Panzerlehrdivision talk page and opened the discussion.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 14:53, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi guys, I noticed this chat after I was reading up on Panzer Lehr. Just to clarify, I only really suggested standardising the name because it stood out to me that 2 diff names were being used (perhaps because its an FAC) in the lede and main body. I kinda thought that where stuff like spelling and person's names are specified, it seemed logical that unit names are too. But, I'll readily admit that I now realise half the articles I edit have the same problem - especially when I start abbreviating the south Staffordshire Regiment to South Staffords halfway through an article! I think at VB I just noticed that an abbreviated name was used before the correct name which is why I mentioned it. Of course I've managed to create a new issue as well, (I support Panzer Lehr Division as the article name btw).

Anyway, I was going to offer to give VB a quick c/e if you liked. I can see what Tony's getting at (and I did agree with Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs comments, but I think that's definitely been dealt with), but I don't think it requires too much work.

On a separate note, as you both do a lot of Normandy stuff, I wondered if either of you could help with this question I posed? Cheers, Ranger Steve (talk) 18:45, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest Steve, it's something that needs addressing anyway; I think your comments just brought it into sharper focus. Re V-B, please do! And as for the template, I have no idea; normally we'd only italicise when it's a foreign word not in general English usage or a title of a book/film/song etc, none of which applies. Unless Enigma can shed light on it, I'd think they should be de-italicised. EyeSerenetalk 19:04, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I was about to call it quits for the night EyeSerene, I've got to pay attention to the hamster! Feel free to edit away and I'll have another look tomorrow. Ranger Steve (talk) 21:38, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

battle of villers bocage

can u join discussion? your opinion seems to be nearly "neutral" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.176.148.111 (talk) 02:25, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rangeblock

Any idea why Rangeblock helper is not working? Cirt (talk) 09:15, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

None at all, sorry. I've been getting a lot of error messages for WP lately though; "can't find server", "site experiencing problems" type of stuff. Maybe the toolserver's down? EyeSerenetalk 09:18, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, scratch that. The toolserver main page seems to be ok, but I'm getting nothing for the rangeblock helper either. EyeSerenetalk 09:20, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No idea, but I used to use that tool to help with rangeblocks... Oh well, Cirt (talk) 09:20, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I found it [2]. Cirt (talk) 09:26, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorted then :) I've never used it to be honest, then I've never had reason to do a rangeblock. Looks handy though - I'll keep it in mind for the future. EyeSerenetalk 09:38, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

please look

cant u see the BIAS ? on the "operation totalize" articles he writes 1200+ casualties for the allies , but the WIA are missing, i tell him thats bad and we should write unknown . on villers bocage we know the exact figures for sSSPzAbt101 but they cant come to the infobox because he wants "unknown" same situations but for the allies he uses low number for germans not. look ths discusion pages of this both articles look his arguement u must see it . its so obivous.... . he brings war time claims of soldiers to the infobox though we know the exact destroyed tanks. please open your eyes.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.176.147.5 (talk) 20:48, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Gill Giller Gillerger 2

Apologies for the delay; I finally answered. --Rschen7754 (T C) 21:14, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, replied on the RfC talkpage. EyeSerenetalk 10:02, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Block of Likebox

I note that on 11 November 2009 you blocked Likebox for disruption. On 13 November Likebox was unblocked by Tanthalas39 with an admonition to mind his Ps and Qs for a bit. I report that Likebox has since continued to behave in an uncivil way here in his manner of objecting to a request for a source for contentious wording. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:02, 17 December 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Yes, I agree it was a little direct, but it wasn't personal--- Xxanthippe was just talking bullshit. Another editor made the same comments on his talk page. I will try to substitute "nonsense" in the future.Likebox (talk) 09:37, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just to add, your block on me was total nonsense.Likebox (talk) 09:37, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Heh, aren't euphemisms fun :) Of course I don't always make the right decision, but sticking to the observable facts you were serial-reverting and therefore in breach of the "disruptive" clause in your editing restriction. If you hadn't manufactured the ammunition that was then used against you, there wouldn't have been an issue. EyeSerenetalk 10:09, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ce request

Hey, EyeSerene; I know it's been a while. I'm gonna be back in the writing article bit in January, and one of the first things on my agenda is a big FA push on Japanese capital ships. The first one of these - Japanese battleship Yamato - is in sore need of a copyedit before any eventual FAC. Would I be able to trouble you for one in the near future? Cam (Chat) 03:25, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cam, if you and ES don't mind, can you hold off until I can add info and references from Axis and Neutral Battleships in World War II? :) —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 03:28, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm intending to put in some work on the Academy in preference to copyediting for a bit, but from Ed's post this might be a while so no problem on both requests :) Let me know when you're ready, Cam. EyeSerenetalk 08:36, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
K. Update: Ed's just finishing off the final section. You're free to copyedit anytime you want save for the "1945" section, which Ed hasn't finished yet. Take your time, I'm in no hurry at this point. Cam (Chat) 06:48, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK, will do. EyeSerenetalk 09:16, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi ES, thanks a lot for eopyediting. I've finished the article, so don't hold back from any parts of the article. ;) —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 21:51, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Need a copyeditor (But I know you're busy!)

Hey ES. I have M22 Locust in a Peer Review at the moment with an eye for FAC in the near future. It needs a copy-edit for various prose thingies, as its not my greatest area. I know you're busy, but can you recommend a copy-editor who might have time to run through it? It's not a particularly long or complex article, so I don't think it would take too long. Skinny87 (talk) 10:58, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, only if you're really sure ES, then thanks. But don't wprry about it, 'tis the holiday season and all that! Skinny87 (talk) 14:01, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

School Rumble

Can you do a quick check of the article again before I bring it back up to FA as I added and changed some items.陣内Jinnai 05:15, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

V-B

Am thinking we should go for another FA review in the New Year after we can address everything that has been raised. As for where to go now, do you think it is wise to keep ce the article; i.e. ask Steve and Maralia give the once over?

Likewise the casualty section that was requested has now been pinpointed as a possible problem, do you have any suggestions on how to address them? Personaly i dont like the idea of tables and would prefer not to see one added but do you think it is a worthwhile suggestion?--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 16:22, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ill ask Steve if he would like to have another crack over the article first; ill go and ask now.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 12:35, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A bit of a delayed happy new year, but better late than never! I have just worked through most of the points raised by Abraham on the V-B talkpage bar one iirc; he has suggested that the lede be cut down a tad. Could you take a look at this and address maybe?--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 12:14, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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) 08:55, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]


MisterBee1966 (talk) is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the Christmas cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas3}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

operation charnwood

on the villers bocage article the british claims(delaforce wrotes the unit history and copied this claims) of german tanks knocked out are in the infobox so i take the german claims of tanks knocked out at charnwood. they claimed 103 but 80 are in the box. its the same relation like on villers bocage. maybe they were immobilized or something else or maybe the claims are wrong but the claims have to come to the box . the explanation is on the villersbocage page where enigma explains... . i hope its ok , its the same situation —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.176.148.49 (talk) 02:53, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Id rather not fan the flames however there are few key issues with what you wrote that tarnish your entire point:
  1. The divisional history has been consulted and the claim the division made has been inputted into the article - the division's staff claim 9 tanks knocked out.
  2. Daniel Taylor notes the British regiments claimed 14 tanks knocked out during the battle but acknowledges that this would be a figure that includes tanks latter recovered or only immobilised but STILL put out of action during the battle. To note this is actually mentioned.
  3. The only claim of 15 tanks comes from Delaforce, who wrote a book ABOUT the division not a book FOR the division; he doesnt state they are claims, he doesnt say his source is Taylor, the regiments or even the division itself, he states the Germans had 15 tanks knocked out in the battle. Him and him alone; in short your point is groundless.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 01:31, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]


yep delaforce not even mentions his sources, no note or explanation.... . very reliable men. immediate wartime claims are always exggarated. the six tanks which were not found are temporaly disabled or double count of infantry. absolutly improper for the infobox. wartime claims should maybe be mentioned in the casualties section with the explanation of the issue of overclaiming. bringing them to the box while better sources are available is bias and nothing else. there are many infoboxes which should be filled with immediate wartime claims. we start with CHARNWOOD —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.176.144.42 (talk) 19:11, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thats what is called a strawman argument; should i note how Reynolds, who provides the lowest figure, does not provide his source, nor do most of the others.
Second you can keep rambling away but you are not addressing the point that Delaforce is not a primary source, is not he immediate post war divisional history, does not use wartime claims, and was written during the 90s not during or just after the war. How do you know Delaforce is using wartime claims, or double counting where is your evidence?
Taylor notes that the tanks claimed were all disabled during the battle, which is a compeltly different matter and infact provides a different figure to Delaforce.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 10:15, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year!

A noiseless patient spider,
I mark'd where on a little promontory it stood isolated,
Mark'd how to explore the vacant vast surrounding,
It launch'd forth filament, filament, filament, out of itself,
Ever unreeling them, ever tirelessly speeding them.

And you O my soul where you stand,
Surrounded, detached, in measureless oceans of space,
Ceaselessly musing, venturing, throwing, seeking the spheres to connect them,
Till the bridge you will need be form'd, till the ductile anchor hold,
Till the gossamer thread you fling catch somewhere, O my soul."

—"A Noiseless Patient Spider" by Walt Whitman

Happy New Year Awadewit (talk) 05:53, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GA Sweeps update

Thanks to everyone's efforts to the GA Sweeps process, we are currently over 90% done with only 226 articles remain to be swept! As always, I want to thank you for using your time to ensure the quality of the older GAs. With over 50 members participating in Sweeps, that averages out to about 4 articles per person! If each member reviews an article once a week this month (or several!), we'll be completely finished. At that point, awards will be handed out to reviewers. As an added incentive, if we complete over 100 articles reviewed this month, I will donate $100 to Wikipedia Forever on behalf of all GA Sweeps participants. I hope that this incentive will help to increase our motivation for completing Sweeps while supporting Wikipedia in the process. If you have any questions about reviews or Sweeps 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) 00:03, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tables

Just wondering; do you have any idea how to get the table at the bottom of this article, British Armoured formations of the Second World War, to display better? I've had a play around but it still looks a bit naff in my opinion.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:36, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Figured it out, nevermind.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 03:54, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the kind words :)--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 19:08, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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) 03:09, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Intentionally erroneus editions

Could you give him warnings about adding misguiding references to this art, User:M.K introduces completely bad data found on incorrect references [3] [4], that can be found as intentionally hoax. He even reverted my admonishions from his page [5] thanx Mathiasrex (talk) 17:33, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Join a worthy project...

Wikipedia:WikiProject Magical Realism Reconsidered! Awadewit (talk) 19:44, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year

Hi EyeSerene, I was just wondering if you did manage to take any pics of a frosty John Baskeyfield when you were up north? I've just had an offer from User:Nthep who has received permission from another website to re-use their pics, but I didn't want your effort to go to waste. Cheers, Ranger Steve (talk) 12:25, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, thanks again for trying. Ranger Steve (talk) 20:12, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

School Rumble FAC

There are some problems listed by one of the reviewers. They also suggest a set of fresh eyes if you can find someone else who is good at copy editing (the anime & manga WikiProject lacks anyone who can do anything beyond basic copy editing) :(.陣内Jinnai 05:19, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Task forces

Hi. What happened to the Pakistani and Indian military history task forces? :( Acejet (talk) 12:30, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not a bad idea, but I was wondering if something could be done about the "chakra" symbol on the template, when the pages are taggged under the task force. That's more of an Indian symbol than being relevant to South Asian militaries such as Pakistan, Afghanistan etc. Acejet (talk) 12:47, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Afd on Daniel Razon

Hi! I will gladly submit to the closing admin's decision, whatever it be. But if the article is not deleted, then please do consider merging it with UNTV. 'I'm sure you have seen the matchless ordeal Howard went through just to get one questionable RS to support this guy's presumed "notability." Someone who is truly notable wouldn't be that difficult. Howard and other pro-keep editors are from the Philippines and naturally want their people represented in WP. – Shannon Rose Talk 18:21, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I also hope you read the final notes I have added 17 seconds after you placed the closure in progress tag. – Shannon Rose Talk 18:25, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Arabic

I'm afraid that is not Arabic, it's Farsi language, you will need an editor from Iran for this. Nonetheless, I can read what he's adding and I agree that this is certainly a vandal, because he added the word "قاتل" which means in Arabic (and I assume in Farsi too, because the languages are kind of close) a "Murderer." Sorry I couldn't be of much help. Best. Yazan (talk) 04:44, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

SACD

Hi!

You recently sent me a message regarding the SACD article. I made the changes after a lengthy discussion on the SACD discussion page (during which time, I presented many arguments, received responses from both Samboy and Bink, and you never showed up). If you disagreed with me, you could have presented your reasoning there to overturn mine. I acted on the changes for I wanted to be bold, as suggested by Wiki and Bink (I found out this later though), and I received no objection over my most recent arguments prior to making the corresponding changes. I have just repeated my argument there again, and hopefully you would respond.

By the way, you chose (by rolling back to a previous state without providing any further edit) to use Marbecks' website [6] as a reference for SACD releases. The link opens up to a message that says "there haven’t been any classical SACD titles released in the last 90 days.", which is absolutely wrong (please look at [7]). Marbecks' out-of-date-ness was my stated reason for its removal. Please explain why you think that Marbecks' link should be used. Thank you! Iubrecording (talk) 18:42, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! I have just replied.Iubrecording (talk) 02:17, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rambles map

I put a few last tweaks at my talk page - thanks so much! Awadewit (talk) 16:28, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I had noticed them, but thanks for the reminder :) I'll upload the (final?) version shortly. EyeSerenetalk 16:59, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Thank you for helping to mediate what could have been an ugly edit war in Super Audio CD and helping us find a number of high-quality references which have helped us to keep the article up to date and be better referenced. Samboy (talk) 18:30, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good News for the Academy

Hello, EyeSerene. You have new messages at Auntieruth55's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
TomStar81 (Talk) 01:14, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you'd consider making yourself available to assist the noobs as well? Ive already offered to help anyone new to the site that needs help; if you care to lend assistance as well, you can add your name here. TomStar81 (Talk) 09:15, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

re:Milhist task force reorganisation

Well, that's quite a surprise for me as I wasn't able to follow the discussions on coordinators talk page and therefore wasn't aware of such decisions. However, merging the Romanian TF into the Balkan TF is wrong by principle, as Romania and Moldova are not part of the Balkan peninsula. What I would have understand would be merging it within a Central European TF, with a Romanian working group to be taken into consideration (due to the fact that it seems the ex RO TF means about half of the Balkans TF). I know that it's my fault I didn't follow the discussions on coordinators talk page, but I believe somebody should have pinged me especially as I created that task force myself. --Eurocopter (talk) 12:23, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Then that explains everything, as I'm not accessing very often the main project talkpage. Well, what's done it's done. Perhaps those who decided this were aware of the issue mentioned by me above and considered it's better to ignore it. --Eurocopter (talk) 17:25, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Something for you

The da Vinci Barnstar
In recognition of your diligence in carrying out a series of complex task force mergers, I hereby award you with this barnstar. Kirill [talk] [prof] 13:05, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes indeed, thank you very much for following through on all those mergers/renames...my brain bleeds at the thought of the amount of work. You're a peach! Maralia (talk) 23:00, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You're very welcome, glad to be of service :) EyeSerenetalk 09:12, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello from the Alejo Carpentier group!

Hi Eyeserene! I noticed your discussion on the WP:MRR talk page and would like to thank-you for your interest in our class project! Currently the groups are putting together a bibliographies and we should then start adding information to our respective articles. Look for new additions soon! If you would like to help my group with the Alejo Carpentier page, it would be much appreciated. Let us know if you'd be okay with us asking you for help when needed. Thanks again! Katie322 (talk) 03:21, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

#switch/#if help

Would you mind coming over here and helping me with some intricate #switch/#if stuff for a template? I'm still learning how all of it works, and these bits are still somewhat confusing to me. I appreciate your time. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 19:08, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Smedley Butler

Thank you very much, that was my first adventure with A class reviews, next stop FA. --Kumioko (talk) 19:37, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Compliments

You should see all the nice things that are being said about your map at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Rambles in Germany and Italy/archive1! Awadewit (talk) 22:01, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you!

The Graphic Designer's Barnstar
Thank you so much for the beautiful map that you made depicting Mary Shelley's rambles around Europe. Your hard work is very much appreciated. Awadewit (talk) 02:41, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tactable/Hill 262

I have just noticed that both articles are at odds with one another over German losses at Hill 262 but both are using the same source; McGilvray, p. 54.

I dont have access to this source, do you?--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 09:11, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nice 1 =]--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 09:17, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Aye aye--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 10:54, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

7th Infantry Division (United States) Copy-edit

Hello. I am in the process of pushing the 7th Infantry Division article to Featured status, however it failed its most recent review because one user requested a copy-edit. I was wondering if you would be willing to provide a copy edit for the article or if you knew someone else willing to do so. Thank you, —Ed!(talk) 23:58, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

trolling?

please answer my simple question why u use different methods for allies and germans, ANSWER!!!

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:EyeSerene&oldid=339971830"