User:EyeSerene/Archive10

Kate Morgan
Thanks for your help with Kate Morgan and Talk:Kate Morgan. Now as to the proper disposition of the article, it would seem like the article runs afoul of WP:1E. I would propose either merging the primary content with Hotel del Coronado in a new section titled "Haunting", or moving the article to "Haunting of the Hotel del Coronado". Need an opinion on which would be the better course of action. Should I place this suggestion and/or appropriate maintenance tags on the Kate Morgan and/or Hotel del Coronado page? Thanks again. KuyaBriBri Talk 20:48, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Kate Morgan
Here's the rub:

Wikipedia lists Alan May as a quasi-credible resource regarding the subject of Kate Morgan. He wrote three versions of his story, each one becoming progressively delusional, ending with his belief that Kate was his grandmother. The Hotel del Coronado sold his third book in their gift shop and this permitted his version to ascend to the position of being the truth.

Along comes Chris Donovan, the historian of the Del, who arrived at the conclusion May was literally insane. I share her belief. About the same time, I learned through genealogy research that Kate Morgan was married to my grandmother's step-brother.

Working cooperatively at the time, Chris Donovan and I went to the San Diego Library and obtained microfiche copies of all articles from the newspapers of the time and I carefully transcribed them, word-for-word, and provided a copy of the transcripts to Chris, which she used in her writing of the so-called "official" story. Even though I had supplied her with all my family research, she chose not to use it; I believe she wanted to maintain some of the mystery and controversy regarding Kate ... it's good for business. The fact that Kate was pretty much a tramp and a habitual liar is not. So she sanitized the articles and published her book.

Further, I obtained a copy of the official Coroner's report and transcribed it word-for-word as well.

The newspaper articles and the Coroner's report are the only source of information regarding Kate Morgan and her tragic death. Everything you see in print today stems from them, then from Richard Carrico's article, then Alan May's book.

Nothing else was known about her until I twice traveled from Dallas to Fremont County, Iowa and searched county probate records, the county histories, census records, and county plat maps drawn at the time; I interviewed members of the family in Iowa and California. Believe me when I tell you that no one knows more about Kate Morgan than I. Even Tom Morgan's granddaughter, from whom I obtained the photo of Kate, had no idea whatsoever, until I told her, that Kate was alleged to be the ghost of the Del.

Mr. Cullen did contact me for information before he published his book, but would give no credence to any of the information I supplied him, other than to allow that Tom Morgan may not have been a traveling gambler after all. Any bit of information that did not agree with the conclusion he had already reached, and spent a great deal of time writing about, was dismissed as some kind of conspiracy Kate was somehow involved in 50 years after her death. As much as I tried to discuss/argue the facts with Mr. Cullen, the more entrenched he became. Assuming you have read his remarks in this forum, I believe you will understand of which I speak. I do not suffer fools gladly, and in the end, he fit this category. He discontinued our correspondence as he could no longer tolerate my teasing him about his intransigence.

I remarked that if we were sitting in a bar in downtown Hamburg, Iowa drinking some long-necks, I'd feel the urge to smack him upside the head, just to try and get his attention. This is the "threat" of physical violence of which he spoke. He obviously doesn't get Texas humor.

My issue with him is that his first edition was marketed as fiction, and the second as non-fiction. Even while he allows his "theory" is conjecture, he presents it as the being the truth, or at least a reasonable facsimile thereof. It's not. It doesn't belong on a web site with the word "pedia" in the name any more than Alan May's fantasy.

So, in an effort to try and put this silly harangue from Mr. Cullen about me vandalizing "his" Wikipedia page, threatening him with physical harm, being psychotic and psychopathic, I went to the trouble of posting a great deal of information last night that gives the word-for-word facts, in so far as anyone knows them, so the Wiki visitor can read it all for themself and come to their own conclusion.

My post last night lived less than 24 hours, and was deleted by an editor with no knowledge of the subject matter whatsoever. I believe had you read any of the content, you could easily discern the accuracy of the information, for no other reason than there are exacting details provided. I made few, if any, personal comments about the contents, simply putting it out there for people to read.

I never thought it would happen, but I agree with Mr. Cullen ... if Wikipedia is simply not going to allow any information on the page other than what's there now ... if you won't allow the facts to speak for themselves, then the page is not much good to anyone - you might as well take it down.

I'd appreciate hearing your thoughts. You may contact me at girardta@yahoo.com if you like.

Thanks.

24.27.72.98 (talk) 06:01, 20 December 2008 (UTC)Terry Girardot

Joseph Maxwell copyedit request
Hi EyeSerene, how are you mate? I bet you're starting to get sick of copyediting requests (if you aren’t already, that is :), but I've come to request your brilliant skills on the article Joseph Maxwell. I understand that you have a few on the list already, and probably won't be able to get this one done until the new year if you accept to do so, that is, but I was hoping to take this article to FAC sometime in the future (preferably before February, as I'm on school holidays basically 'til then). I would like to go back and make some minor changes, mainly in the "Early life" section, but it's pretty much ready to go, I think. As usual, if you are too busy or do not wish to do the copyedit, please to not hesitate to say so; you are not obligated to do so. Thanks either way, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 13:47, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * P.S. After some further umming and arring I decided to take the plunge and nominate Blair Anderson Wark for FAC. It has only been a few days so far, but as it currently stands it seems highly likely to pass. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 13:47, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Lol, with your expertise, I don't think you will ever be through that list. Thanks mate, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 10:05, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I would like to correct a misunderstanding that Mr. Kuyabribri labors under, and which Mr. Girardot skillfully plays on in his continuing campaign of disinformation and irrelevance. I have never claimed to "own" the page. What I have said is that I published a book, which has become the target of an obsessive and destructive campaign of disinformation by this individual who has no theory of his own (by his own admission in one place, and denial in another place, as it suits his whim of the moment).

I live in San Diego, have worked at the Hotel del Coronado, and spent several years legitimately researching a neglected but fascinating San Diego story. I then published a book that is heavily annotated with references, based on the very detailed and highly reputable research done by the official historian at the Hotel del Coronado, plus my own research. the book is selling well, and I am now on to my next book project.

I happened upon your Wikipedia pagenot quite a year ago, about Kate Morgan. The page was out of date and long-neglected. I cleaned up the language (about half of what it currently says is my wording). I added a paragraph about my book, on the carefully considered assumption that new research is newsworthy. This is a relative term. If the Kate Morgan bio is noteworthy, then verifiable information should be noteworthy. All the information in my book is verifiable, as described in my book.

As far as Mr. Girardot's comments about me and my work are concerned, I requested adult supervision at this page more than six months ago when he began injecting his comments. Nobody ever responded from Wikipedia. For the record, Mr. Girardot never sent me any documents. I owe him nothing, though he wrote to me demanding mention in my book. I had already been the subject of numerous hateful emails from this obsessed individual when he began defacing the web page in an effort to cloud the issue.

As he makes clear in his postings, he refuses to allow anyone to theorize about the Kate Morgan mystery--which he feels he owns, and he has indeed purchased the domain name.

His claims that I owe him something are a hallucination at best, or at worst untruthful, and that is where it rests. If Wikipedia would contact the principals in disputes like this, rather than talking around them, it would certainly save everyone a lot of effort and dyspepsia.

As for me, I am about to publish a major book about ancient Rome, which has had important endorsements, and I must move on with life, while this man continues to obsess about a subject he does not entirely understand.

I do think an easy resolution would be to remove the page, and all the disjointed garble of comments. I don't have time to continue this discussion. I contributed a paragraph about my book, which was removed. By the way, all the newspaper articles quoted by Mr. Girardot in an effort to give an appearance of research and legitimacy are carefully annotated in my book, and are also quoted in the hotel's official book (which they, unfortunately, have withdrawn). So I close by reiterating that what this situation needs is adult supervision.

As DGG says on his web page, "If I had better understood Wikipedia in the beginning..." I now understand that this whole topic may not be up to standards, and could well be dropped without loss to anyone. If the page is kept, I think it would be a loss not to mention my book, since the scurrilous Alan May book is mentioned (in which Mr. May makes the claim that not only was Tom Morgan a gambler, but a murderer to boot). As for Mr. Girardot, he has made absolutely no case for or against my book.

His issue seems to be clearing his alleged ancestor's name (Tom Morgan) and I have done him the courtesy of helping with that. IIf you do keep the page, I think it would be unthinkable not to mention my book, since it is one of only two reputable books ever written about the subject of what really happened in 1892 at the Hotel del Coronado. My focus, by the way, is not on the ghost story, but on the true-life crime mystery. And I do suggest that Mr. Girardot grow up and find something else to obsess about. Thank you.Johntcullen (talk) 18:48, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

John T. Cullen response
I would like to correct a misunderstanding that Mr. Kuyabribri has mentioned, and which Mr. Girardot skillfully plays on in his continuing campaign of disinformation and irrelevance. I have never claimed to "own" the page. What I have said is that I published a book, which has become the target of an obsessive and destructive campaign of disinformation by this individual who has no theory of his own (by his own admission in one place, and denial in another place, as it suits his whim of the moment).

'''Here is my "theory", of which Mr. Cullen is well aware: Kate Morgan abandoned her husband and ran away with Albert Allen, who was a step-son of Tom Morgan's step-mother; when Allen abandoned her, she could not return to Iowa because of the scandal as the Farmer and Morgan families were very wealthy, owners of huge amounts of land, and the most prominent families in the county. I suspect she saw suicide as the only solution to her problems.'''

I live in San Diego, have worked at the Hotel del Coronado, and spent several years legitimately researching a neglected but fascinating San Diego story. I then published a book that is heavily annotated with references, based on the very detailed and highly reputable research done by the official historian at the Hotel del Coronado, plus my own research. the book is selling well, and I am now on to my next book project.

'''If Mr. Cullen believes the "very detailed and highly reputable research" done by the Del, then why does he object so strenously about having it appear on Wikipedia? A good deal of that reputable research was obtained when the Del's historian, Christine Donovan, and I went to the San Diego Library together and made copies of all the newspaper articles we could find on the subject. We also went to the San Diego Historical Society and looked at their records. I brought the newspaper articles home, transcribed them word-for-word, and supplied the transcript to Chris ... after all, she was the one putting the nickels in the microfilm machine.'''

By the way, the first edition of Beautiful Stranger does contain a few minor errors, such as the Del's clerk suggesting they telephone her brother - the Coroner's report clearly says telegraph.

'''Mr. Cullen has stated elsewhere on Wikipedia that the San Diego Chief of Police did not make a positive identification of the body as I reported. Perhaps this is because the only research he used was the Del's book, which omitted an article appearing in the December 15th issue of the Los Angeles Times: "Chief of Police J.R. Breuning of San Diego was in the city yesterday, and visited Chief Glass, who has in his possession a photograph of Mrs. Kate Morgan, which was found among her effects at Contractor Grant's ... As soon as Chief Breuning caught sight of Mrs. Morgan's picture he remarked "That is the woman beyond a doubt."'''

'''Chris Donovan's recitation of the newspaper articles ended on December 14th. Did not Mr. Cullen, who lives in San Diego, even bother to go to the Library and read the articles himself?'''

I happened upon your Wikipedia pagenot quite a year ago, about Kate Morgan. The page was out of date and long-neglected. I cleaned up the language (about half of what it currently says is my wording). I added a paragraph about my book, on the carefully considered assumption that new research is newsworthy. This is a relative term. If the Kate Morgan bio is noteworthy, then verifiable information should be noteworthy. All the information in my book is verifiable, as described in my book.

THEN DO THIS: CITE A SINGLE SOURCE, OTHER THAN YOUR OWN IMAGINATION, THAT IN ANY WAY EVEN SUGGESTS, MUCH LESS PROVES, THAT LIZZIE WYLLIE WAS AN UNWITTING DUPE OF KATE MORGAN IN AN EXTORTION PLOT AGAINST SPRECKLES, AND THAT LIZZIE IS THE PERSON OCCUPYING THE GRAVE AT MT. HOPE CEMETERY.

This is the underlying thesis of your book, and if you can't prove it, then label your work as "fiction" rather than "Nonfiction—True 1892 Crime Mystery"

As far as Mr. Girardot's comments about me and my work are concerned, I requested adult supervision at this page more than six months ago when he began injecting his comments. Nobody ever responded from Wikipedia. For the record, Mr. Girardot never sent me any documents. I owe him nothing, though he wrote to me demanding mention in my book. I had already been the subject of numerous hateful emails from this obsessed individual when he began defacing the web page in an effort to cloud the issue.

'''On the contrary, I sent Mr. Cullen a .pdf file on CD-Rom of the complete transcript of the book I published. I did NOT demand mention in his book ... I suggested it might be considerate of him to do so, since I had supplied him with so much information. Once he gave me a galley proof of his book, however, I lost interest in being mentioned in it.'''

I have retained all the e-mail messages exchanged between us, and can provide evidence of what was said by whom to whom.

As he makes clear in his postings, he refuses to allow anyone to theorize about the Kate Morgan mystery--which he feels he owns, and he has indeed purchased the domain name.

His claims that I owe him something are a hallucination at best, or at worst untruthful, and that is where it rests. If Wikipedia would contact the principals in disputes like this, rather than talking around them, it would certainly save everyone a lot of effort and dyspepsia.

As for me, I am about to publish a major book about ancient Rome, which has had important endorsements, and I must move on with life, while this man continues to obsess about a subject he does not entirely understand.

I do think an easy resolution would be to remove the page, and all the disjointed garble of comments. I don't have time to continue this discussion. I contributed a paragraph about my book, which was removed. By the way, all the newspaper articles quoted by Mr. Girardot in an effort to give an appearance of research and legitimacy are carefully annotated in my book, and are also quoted in the hotel's official book (which they, unfortunately, have withdrawn). So I close by reiterating that what this situation needs is adult supervision.

'''Mr. Cullen's book summarizes the newspaper articles but does not reproduce them in their entirety as I have done. His narration also ends on December 14th, just as the Del's book does. Is this a coincidence? Both of them omit another relevant article from the December 17th issue of the San Diego Union: "Hamburg, IA., Dec 16. - This town was much surprised on learning that the woman who committed suicide a few days ago at San Diego, Cal., and was supposed to have been a Detroit lady, proved to be Mrs. Kate Morgan of this place. Mrs. Morgan had not been living with her husband for several months."'''

As DGG says on his web page, "If I had better understood Wikipedia in the beginning..." I now understand that this whole topic may not be up to standards, and could well be dropped without loss to anyone. If the page is kept, I think it would be a loss not to mention my book, since the scurrilous Alan May book is mentioned (in which Mr. May makes the claim that not only was Tom Morgan a gambler, but a murderer to boot). As for Mr. Girardot, he has made absolutely no case for or against my book.

'''Ah, but I have ... against: (1) Before her suicide, the woman (Kate) asked that a telegram be sent to George Allen, who lived on a farm immediately adjacent to Tom Morgan's father and his step-mother; this ties the dead girl to Albert Allen, George's brother, as stated above. (2) Lizzie Wyllie's mother identified the body as her daughter based on a written description. But her daughter had pierced ears, and the corpse did not. After Mrs. Wyllie was provided a photograph of the dead woman, she made no further claim the girl was her daughter; (3) John Longfield, Lizzie's supposed lover, sent his wife a letter he had received (after the date of Kate's death) from Lizzie, who was in Toronto; authorities at the time were therefore convinced Lizzie was not the suicide, Mr. Cullen's assertion to the contrary; (4) The artist's sketch of the dead woman bears a remarkable resemblance to Kate Morgan's photograph; and finally, (5) the positive identification by Chief Breuning.'''

His issue seems to be clearing his alleged ancestor's name (Tom Morgan) and I have done him the courtesy of helping with that. IIf you do keep the page, I think it would be unthinkable not to mention my book, since it is one of only two reputable books ever written about the subject of what really happened in 1892 at the Hotel del Coronado. My focus, by the way, is not on the ghost story, but on the true-life crime mystery. And I do suggest that Mr. Girardot grow up and find something else to obsess about.

'There are actually three reputable books written on the subject, if one includes Mr. Cullen's, which I do not: Beautiful Stranger'', published by the Hotel del Coronado, and The True Story of Kate Morgan, which I self-published. Because I was unemployed at the time it was published and could not afford the cost of a second printing, there are only 200 copies in existence. One hundred of them were sold at Bay Books on Orange Avenue in Coronado, about 30 were sold by the San Diego Historical Society, a similar amount at another book store in Old Town, whose name I don't recall, a similar amount by a drug store in Hamburg, Iowa, and the rest to people who contacted me over the Internet, one as far away as Australia. I suppose Mr. Cullen will accuse me of deceipt on this issue as well, so I would refer you to the following website: http://home.earthlink.net/~durangodave/html/portfolio/Kate_Morgan_book.html'''

24.27.72.98 (talk) 08:04, 25 December 2008 (UTC)TERRY GIRARDOT

Thank you.Johntcullen (talk) 18:52, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Op Brevity
I have responded to your questions on the talk page :)--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:28, 29 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Hey no problems about a wait. I am very appreciative of the help! Do you believe its now ready for another shot at the FA title?--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 14:42, 8 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Cheers dude! I should really get back to mu uni coursework but ill put it up for FA later today :)--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 14:59, 8 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Only felt like it was five minutes ago i wrote that above message lol
 * Anyhoo, its now up: Featured article candidates/Operation Brevity--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 16:31, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Kate Morgan
I see that no consensus was obtained to apend this material to the Hotel del Coronado page on Wikipedia.

So know what?

Here's some further comments, partially based on the consensus discussion.

Kate's only claim to fame is she killed herself on the beach outside the hotel and some how, some where, some one decided she was haunting her old room.

The first published material I have been able to find is an article written by the noted historian, Richard Carrico, who published an article in the Heritage section of San Diego Home & Garden (October 1983).

Alan May was given a copy of this article, and he then wrote three editions of his book. His last version seems to be the cornerstone of most of the variations of the story. He used the newspaper articles and the Coroner's report, but omitted anything in them that didn't comport to his fictional account. Every "authority" who has done any research at all on the subject dismisses his book as being meaningless.

In the course of ordinary genealogy research on my mother's family, I discovered Tom Morgan was the step-brother of my maternal grandmother. I then spent the next year traveling to Iowa and California to further research the subject and refine the facts. I self-published a book, albeit with only 200 copies, so it has limited circulation.

Then John Cullen contacted me for information as he was nearing the end of preparing his book on the subject. He dismissed all the factual information I had that did not comport with his conclusion, which is that Lizzie Wyllie is in the grave at Mt. Hope rather than Kate Morgan. He apparently limited his research to the book published by the Hotel del Coronado, which did not use all the information available. The Heritage Department's goal was to "poppycock" May's book while retaining the mystic of Kate and her haunting of the hotel; as one of the contributing editors mentioned, ghosts are good for business.

You indicated a Google search turned up only 396 hits; this is completely dependent on how you phrase your inquiry and which search engine you use. "Kate Morgan" +ghost returns 6,550 hits on Google, but 30,000 on Yahoo. "Kate Morgan" "Hotel del Coronado" returns 29,200 on Yahoo. "Kate Morgan" "San Diego" returns 6,680 hits on Google, but 32,100 on Yahoo.

One editor commented he wanted input from a paranormal investigator. My focus has never been whether there is a ghost or not, but on the life of Kate Morgan. However, Bonnie Vent of San Diego is just such a person, and she has had repeated conversations with the ghost, who claims not to be Kate Morgan, but Lottie Anderson. You can Google her and see a video of one of her conversations. Bonnie is a very nice person, but we have differing thoughts on the afterlife.

The office at Mt. Hope Cemetery has so many requests from tourists that stop and ask for directions to Kate's grave they have a map pre-prepared to hand to them.

Even though Kate Morgan may not strictly meet Widipedia's guidelines for inclusion, you cannot deny that she is a person of great interest to the public.

It's kind of interesting that +socks +clinton in Google produces 2,550,000 hits and all he was is just a cat that lived in the White House with the Clintons. Also notable is the fact that the first return is the Wikepedia page that has a longer article on him than it does on Kate. Can you explain to me how he merits a page on Wiki given his limited accomplishments in life?

John Cullen's material was nothing more than a blatant attempt to market his book for personal gain. His only vested interest in the subject is income.

So, I would again suggest that the Kate Morgan page be left on Wikipedia, delete all current information now appearing and only publish the verifiable information, namely, the Coroner's report and ALL the newspaper articles. That won't dispel the myth of the traveling gamber / con artist angle, but if you are interested in presenting all the available information, you can add my genelogical research - it too, is verifiable.

What I don't understand is what it takes to get Wikipedia to consider information verifiable. All of my information gives the source ... what else is required?

Thanks.

05:01, 31 December 2008 (UTC)Terry Girardot —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.27.72.98 (talk)

Greetings (and some Milhist business)
First, happy new year!

Second, I've raised a couple of things here which could use swift responses. May I trouble you please to check them out?

Thanks! -- R OGER D AVIES  talk 19:31, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Bailén review
Hi Eye. I'd be glad if you (and any other Peninsularists/War-of-Independencists) took a look here. I still take Battle of Albuera as something of a model, so I'll put more stock in your review&mdash;and Carre's, but he seems consigned to wikiOblivion&mdash;than most. Cheers, Albrecht (talk) 02:03, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Mentor
Just read this, thought you'd like to know that I really laughed out loud, hard in fact. Loved the bit about Dennis the Menace's dad and Hannibal's defence council, even laughed as I typed it. Ryan 4314  (talk) 14:34, 5 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I've never even heard of them, I must assimilate! I'm still stuck on the dreadfully dull HMS Ardent book, good intention, poorly executed etc. Ryan 4314   (talk) 15:11, 5 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Hastings n Jenkins was one of the first I read, although the flaws are apparent, I've found little which details that political side of it so well. Ryan 4314   (talk) 15:44, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Socks
Remember this guy? Appears to be back - Special:Contributions/Mattmr. Sigh. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 14:55, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Two different captions for the same picture?
Dear Eyeserene,

By the by, I loved your talkpage autobiographical and other information. As a Buddhist, I found it very appealing.

Regarding my inquiry, the wiki-originator (Grant65) seems to have become frustrated and left wikiworld so I did not know who to turn to for this minor issue.

The issue involves a picture on both "Bombing of Darwin" and "air raids on Austrailia 1942-3".

On the "Bombing of Darwin" wiki page, a mushroom cloud explosion picture notes the explosion attributed to a ship carrying depth charges whereas the "air raids" wiki page suggests that the explosion was from oil storage tanks that were bombed?

I'll look to see if I can find any other reference for that photo that is difinitive but I would guess that one of the wiki pages needs revision?

VballboyUSA (talk) 19:26, 5 January 2009 (UTC)VballboyUSA

Jasenovac
Because I have noticed that you are active.... Can you please put long term semi-protection to article Jasenovac concentration camp ? After end of last full protection on 16 December I and 3 other users (Animate, Zeenarh and TheWanderer) have made 8 reverts of IP users--Rjecina (talk) 20:59, 5 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I think a semi-protection is a wholly incorrect measure on Jasenovac. There is no vandalism occuring in the article to justify excluding only IPs and new users from editing. All of the edit warring on this article is a result of long-standing content disputes and well-established accounts are just as much to blame on this, if not more. This article should be fully protected until current disputes are resolved so that established editors don't get the upper hand in the ongoing edit war.
 * Thanks! SWik78 (talk • contribs) 13:43, 6 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your response. Your reasoning is completely logical and I don't even slightly doubt your ability to deduce the situation correctly when it comes to this article and potential WP:ARBMAC ramifications. I also agree with minimum amounts of protection being put into place unless absolutely necessary. The trouble in this particular case is that the latest set of content disputes was brought on after an anonymous IP editor made a series of edits in September of 2008 which literally doubled the size of the article. User Rjecina called for these edits to be summarily reverted and subsequently filed a request for comment here. The overwhelming consensus during the RfC was that the anonymous IP editor's edits, while not discussed before-hand, were neutral, very helpful and served to improve the article and should, therefore, stay in the article and be improved upon. Since then, this anonymous editor on a dynamic IP has participated in discussions on the talk page in a very civil and neutral manner as well as adding more helpful material to the article which was welcomed by the resident editing corps (most of them, at least) at Jasenovac. After September's edits, he/she continued to expand the article to triple its pre-September size. To date, no editor has single-handedly added more material to this article than this IP editor. Semi-protection of the article effectively excludes the most prolific contributor to this article while potentially allowing his/her detractors (whose opinion, by the way, was in the minority during the above mentioned RfC) to undo all of his/her hard work. Clearly, the IP editor always has the option to bypass the semi-protection restriction but this is something that we can't force upon him, nor should we. For these reasons, I find the semi-protection to not be in the best interest of the article.
 * Sorry for dumping all this on you but I think this rationale is too long for RFPP and I fear a report at AN/I would result in a suggestion of reporting it to above mentioned RFPP so I find myself an an impasse as to what to do. If you still believe that semi-protection is the best prescription for the article, then so be it. I guess I can just keep an eye on the article for a little bit and make sure that the abuse I fear does not come to fruition.
 * Thanks again!
 * Peace! SWik78 (talk • contribs) 17:25, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * SWik78 you are having again good faith mistake in so called Croato-Serbian dispute. I am saying that this is so called C-S dispute because we are ulmost never having disputes between users which are living in Croatia or Serbia, but only between users which are living in Balkan and users which are living in US or Europe. Your "good faith" mistake is difference between in many users thinking of disruptive Washington IP and useful Israel IP. Last edit of useful Israel IP has been on New Year day and he was never reverted. Today Israel IP is having 9 edits under his account name Gratius Pannonius and semi-protection is problem of only Washington IP. It is important to notice that Israel IP was never reverted, but only disruptive Washington IP editing.
 * In my thinking we need arbitar for this article which will make decision if source is reliable or not and NPOV. Do you know administrator which can accept this job ?--Rjecina (talk) 17:26, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Perhaps the first port of call should be the Reliable sources noticeboard, if there's no editor consensus on the article. Deciding if a source is reliable or not is really beyond the administrator remit; it's more a matter for the article editors and subject experts to reach a consensus on, based on WP:RS. However, I think the folks at WP:RSN will be happy to contribute their thoughts. An alternative would be to ask for a request for comment, and (very much) as a last resort there's always WP:ARBCOM. EyeSerene talk 17:42, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * RFC is out of question. Every few months we are having RFC about Jasenovac and nobody is coming. WP:RSN is good thinking, but consensus about sources between me and Washington IP will never be reached. I will accept consensus based on WP:RS, but editorial history of Washington IP is saying different. If you interested about reasons for my thinking you need to read only very simple long, but very simple discussion on Talk:Jasenovac i Gradiška Stara.
 * Problem is that for any solution we will need administrator which will protect article from changes against decision WP:RSN (for example).--Rjecina (talk) 18:03, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Rashid Khalidi
As the Admin who put a one month block on this article, I wonder if you could let me know what you think of the progress this has achieved. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:05, 7 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I hope that you will soon lift the block. The problem with blocks of this type is that a single editor can keep well-sourced, significant material off a web page for months on end (in this case, it is going on three months) by repeatedly provoking edit wars.  A block can sometimes have the effect of rewarding deliberately bad behavior.Historicist (talk) 18:27, 9 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you. I can see that ChildofMidnight is an impulsive, belligerent character, however, I truly believe that an investigation of User:wikidemon would reveal repeated, deliberately manipulative, highly politicized editing involving both reneging on consensus agreements to which he has signed on and deliberate disingenuity in the form of pretended ignorance and faux stupidity as a strategy for blocking material he dislikes but can find no good argument to disallow.  Do Wikipedia administraors conduct such investigations?Historicist (talk) 18:49, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * That's a ridiculous, made-up, and completely unwarranted accusation of bad faith. There were some really awful shenanigans on the page, opposed by several legitimate editors, and attempts to single me out for blame for other people's editing problems.  It is not fair to characterize me as some kind of lone antagonist.   Most of the gripes seem to come out of thin air.  Historicist and another editor signed up for a consensus, immediately disavowed it, then tried to harangue me with accusations, multiple bogus administrative complaints, edit warring of nonconsensus material that several editors considered BLP violations, etc.  I stuck by my word and never once went back on it.  I do not have a "feud" with Child of Midnight, who showed up out of nowhere to heap yet more abuse on me.  I am a legitimate, good faith editor around here, and do not play those kinds of petty games.  The record is as clear as day but I don't see any point defending myself for the umpteenth time.   This is the kind of stuff that makes Wikipedia so trying sometimes.  Wikidemon (talk) 19:11, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm assuming that when Wikidemon says, "That's a ridiculous, made-up, and completely unwarranted accusation of bad faith" he's talking about your comments about me. I agree with him (or her I suppose) wholeheartedly. A simple, "you're not helping here" would have sufficed. I'm happy to hear that you prefer handling the situation on your own. Best of luck. Have fun! :) ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:32, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh and Wikidemon, I didn't come out of nowhere. I responded to a third opinion request and appeals for help. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:34, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll respond here to save cross-posting. I've now unlocked the article and left a note on the talk page. I have no opinion on the rights and wrongs of who was doing what, and don't think it's particularly helpful to resurrect those issues anyway right now. The edit-war - whatever the causes - is in the past; there seems to be some agreement on the talk page; and if good-faith discussion can continue I'm very hopeful that you'll all be able to come up with a version you can live with. Wikidemon, in using the word 'feud' I merely meant the edit-war between you and ChildofMidnight - I didn't mean to imply some sort of long-standing grudge, and I sincerely apologise if that's the impression I gave. EyeSerene talk 19:28, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree that it is best to move forward than to rehash old accusations. What I was calling ridiculous was the old accusation, repeated above, and suggestion that I need to be investigated, with respect to being "deliberately manipulative", "faux stupidity", "strategy for blocking material", "reneging on consensus", etc.  I did nothing of the sort, and have throughout sincerely taken a content position that some proposed material was grossly inappropriate for the article.  In the process I have picked up some rather unrelenting detractors.  Wikidemon (talk) 19:57, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

User:Juzhong
Beat me to it by about five seconds :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:16, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * That's a very good block - I've had that editor's talk page on my watchlist since I first blocked them on 4 December, and it seemed pretty inevitable that they would end up being blocked further times. Nick-D (talk) 11:02, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Jhg812's Page
Thank you for making me better aware of Wikipedia's policies. I was not trying to make my page into a free webhosting service, but if that is how it appeared, I am glad that it was deleted. Jhg812 (talk) 20:16, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Can I please have the wikitext for my recently deleted site back?
Hi, I now understand that Wikipedia is not a free web hosting site. I did not know that before. But now I have found one and I would like to have my text/wikitext (code for the text) back. I have not saved it in a word processing document so I have lost it all. :( Please send it back to me or do the best you can? I do not know who to talk to to for this information back and it means a lot to me. Thank you! :(

AnThononyian (talk) 23:30, 7 January 2009 (UTC) Anthony email redacted for privacy


 * As long as they don't make a reappearance on Wikipedia I have no problem with that, so I've e-mailed you the page contents. Regards, EyeSerene talk 11:24, 8 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you so much! 99.247.50.27 (talk) 22:55, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Operation Cobra
Ping. Would you mind having a look? It just passed the ACR but I want a professional copyeditor to throw a look over it before I put it under FAC. Cheers --Eurocopter (talk) 11:55, 8 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Ok, great. Cheers --Eurocopter (talk) 18:02, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

11 ABN
Weird, I was only thinking about this! Looked over the first edits, look absolutely great, thanks! Skinny87 (talk) 16:02, 8 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, I'm not to bothered about how quickly it goes to be honest. Don't stress yourself out, and if Cobra is going to FAC then by all means please concentrate on that first and foremost. Skinny87 (talk) 18:07, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Request for Mentoring (WP:GA)
Hi, I'm reviewing the article Periyar E. V. Ramasamy, and it's my first review. Could you please help me out (with general advice or anything you feel is particularly important)? I'd greatly appreciate it. Regards, SBC-YPR (talk) 10:06, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the pointers and the template! I've created a sub-page for the review, inserted the template there and will be adding comments to it everyday over the next few days. I would appreciate it if you took a look at it once a day and posted your comments. Regards, SBC-YPR (talk) 14:03, 9 January 2009 (UTC)



SBC-YPR (talk) has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend, Go on smile! Cheers, and Happy editing!=) Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.


 * Thanks for the continuing assistance! Personally, I think the article should be failed. Do you reckon it can be repaired within a week? Regards, SBC-YPR (talk) 13:03, 10 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I've completed the review. Would appreciate it if you went through it and got back to me. Regards, SBC-YPR (talk) 07:25, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Jan. 2009
Wikidemon has again launched an unprovoked personal attack on me on the article discussion page. I hope you will warn him that this behavior is unacceptable. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:07, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * This editor simply won't stop badmouthing me. I was responding to your (EyeSerene's) comment.  Now this editor is accusing me of "bad faith", "personal attacks", "grotesque behavior", "violations of the spirit and guidelines of Wikipedia", "clean up your act", etc.  This is really unpleasant.  I shouldn't have to deal that kind of stuff just to stake out a content position.  It's particularly pointless given that everyone (it seems) is ready to sign off on a consensus version of the edit.  He and others really ought to stop.     Wikidemon (talk) 20:45, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Wikidemon it would be best not to launch into unprovoked personal attacks, particularly after a full page protect, if you don't want your behavior to be scrutinized. Please familiarize yourself with Wikipedia's policies on civility and the purpose of discussion pages. Thanks. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:57, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * My behavior is fine, and has never been a problem. Your ongoing campaign against me needs to stop.  Please desist from insulting me, and concentrate on your own constructive contributions if you care to make any.  Wikidemon (talk) 21:11, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I have removed Wikidemon's incivility and the other comments unrelated to article content. Hopefully we can move forward without any more personal attacks from him or her. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:40, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * You refactored my comment, while using the edit summary to make further accusations against me there - and here again. Stop it.  Wikidemon (talk) 21:50, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXIV (December 2008)
The December 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 02:53, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I smell sockpuppetry....
There is a (obviously) a vandal who keeps making threat accounts on the people who block him/her. Here is an obvious list of accounts he/she created: As you can see, it's a ridiculous number of accounts. I was watching the UAA seeing these usernames coming up 24/7. They are obviously sockpuppets of somebody. Reliable  Forever talk 13:11, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
 * User:Chris G rapes sheep.
 * User:Chris G & Misza13 have anal sex 2gether
 * User:PMDrive1061 (Lucky 6.9) rapes kids.
 * User:Nawlin Wiki & PMDrive1061 have anal sex
 * User:PMDrive1061 & Nawlin Wiki have anal sex
 * User:PMDrive1061 rapes little boys.
 * User:Nawlin Wiki rapes little boys.
 * User:Oxymoron83 is a Nazi living in Berlin.
 * User:Oxymoron83 sexually molests hisPatients
 * User:Oxymoron83 has anal sex with NawlinWiki
 * User:NawlinWiki has anal sex with Oxymoron83
 * By the way, they are all blocked because of their username. Now I got to check to see if I spelt all there usernames right. *runs off to check block log* Reliable   Forever talk 13:13, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I think I spelled them correctly. Reliable   Forever talk 13:17, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Let's stop this sockpuppetry accusation nonsense. That excuse is used to attack others. Just stick to good editing. The usernames can be blocked for name violations. Let's put an end to personal attacks disguised as a sockpuppet allegations. That tactic has caused good editors to leave Wikipedia or sharply curtail their enthusiasm to edit.

Spevw (talk) 23:57, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Award
Spevw (talk) 23:57, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I may need your help soon...
The last of the core articles in the Iowa class battleship series is current up on FAC. Provided I encounter no trouble with the nom (and so far I have not) I intend to push the Iowa class into a Featured Topic nom late January or early February. When that happens I wonder if I might lean on you to copy edit the articles if copy editting becomes an issue? TomStar81 (Talk) 03:32, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Taiwo Atieno
Seems that User:Jimunder now realises that articles have to be sourced, so he's trying to source the aspects of the article that he wants included, but he's still removing or changing bits he doesn't like. Though the Daily Nation piece sources Atieno's wish to play for Kenya, but doesn't mention the new additions of his mother's birthdate/place and his father's tribal origins. He's again removed the work experience at Nuneaton, which was included as a neutral sourced fact (I could have referred to this match report, which wasn't desperately flattering...). As to his additions to the neutral fact of Atieno's release from Walsall: there were several changes of manager in a short period, which could possibly constitute "turmoil", but describing the loan spells as "successful" might be disputed at Chester, Darlington, and possibly Kidderminster. And I've no idea why he removed mention of Dagenham & Redbridge.

The user writes as if he's a fan (or a friend) selectively puffing-up Atieno's CV, without understanding that WP articles are actually supposed to be written from a NPOV. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 16:33, 13 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Atieno's parents' names (though not birthplaces) and his father being a Daily Nation correspondent (though not necessarily a "prominent journalist") are mentioned in the Daily Nation article cited. Also I've put back the "youthyears = 2000–2004" in the infobox, as 2002 is definitely wrong. There's a new article on Walsall's website which talks about Atieno's trip to Kenya and mentions where his father was brought up, the same village as Barack Obama's father apparently... cheers, Struway2 (talk) 19:39, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Taiwo Atieno
Considering the sourced information I added has clear verification that Taiwo Atieno has a mother who is called Bridget Mary Glaisher and a father called Moussa Awuonda makes no contradiction to the page what so ever. It is very relevant to include a persons heritage and back round when there is information to prove this. Atieno's Luo heritage is very significant to Kenya and the people of Luo descent.

21:10, 14 January 2009 (UTC)21:10, 14 January 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimunder (talk • contribs)

Operation Epsom - inserting a small paragraph, CE request
Your edit on the Cobra talkpage brought to my attenion a piece of information missing from the Epsom article that i thought was there (but cant find it anywhere within the history :S). The wierd thing is that i copied the info over on 2nd November but no significate info as been removed since that date.

Anyhoo is there any chance you can take a look over this paragraph and see if the prose is up to standard, it should already be bob on, so i can insert it following the first sentance?

The capture of Caen was considered, while "ambitious", the most important objective assigned to Lieutenant-General Crockers's I Corps for June 6. Operation Overlord called for Second Army to secure the city and then secure a frontline from Caumont-l'Éventé to the south-east of Caen in order to secure airfields and protect the left flank of the United States First Army while it captured Cherbourg. Possession of Caen and the surrounding area would give Second Army a suitable jumping-off point for a push south to capture Falaise, which would then be used as a pivot point to swing right to advance on Argentan and then on towards the Touques River.
 * Footnotes


 * Citations

--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 17:39, 15 January 2009 (UTC)


 * As always, thanks allot!--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:30, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Navboxes
Hi again :)

You dont mind if i nick the idea/layout/images etc that you have for your navboxes to add to my own userpage do you?--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:28, 15 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks allot! :)--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 14:07, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Falaise pocket
This would be another article for your pending list. It is not so urgent as it was copied from my sandbox only today. Cheers, --Eurocopter (talk) 15:44, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Sockpuppeteer
The sockpuppeteer of the accounts I mentioned earlier is obviously 67.81.102.11, see suspected sockpuppets of 67.81.102.11 (On there it has one account (which is suspected), which sounds like a username the vandal that keeps creating usernames that attack users would use). Reliable  Forever talk 12:34, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

RE: Sourcing Question
I've taken what was already located on the Verrieres Ridge article as far as referencing goes and pasted it into Operation Cobra. As for page numbers, I'm afraid I don't have access to that information. The copy I obtained was online, and as such the page numbers were not there. Cam (Chat) 17:11, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

User:Reenem
Since I saw you have dealt with this user before, please have a word with him/her again. Reenem is repeatedly adding unsourced information or changing sourced information on 2008 South Ossetia war and related articles. E.g., , , ,. I tried talking to Reenem on the talk page, but instead of an answer, there have been more unsourced additions. --Xeeron (talk) 13:45, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

request - GA
Hi, another request for a mentor to look over the first reviews of a newish reviewer here. I've completed 2 GA reviews now, and have two pending. Links: first, second. My result on both was a fail &mdash; so I felt having someone look over them is a good idea. Thank you kindly. :) - Whitehorse1 22:48, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks I really appreciate the help! :D Whitehorse1 18:02, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Re: My request for mentoring (WP:GAN)
Sorry to trouble you again, but I've had to extend the hold period twice because the editors were doing a good job on the inputs I have given them. Now, I've left what I think should be the final extension message on the review page, but I'm concerned as to whether I sound as though I'm being too harsh on the editors. Could you please check the page and tell me whether my messages sounded rude, bossy or autocratic? If so, please help me tone them down. Regards, SBC-YPR (talk) 11:23, 27 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the encouragement :-) By the way, the review page seems to be undergoing a flagged revision, and hence my latest reassessmnent hasn't been transcluded onto the talk page. Could you please mark it as patrolled? Regards, SBC-YPR (talk) 09:58, 28 January 2009 (UTC)


 * It does now - thanks! My confusion about flagged revs arose from the fact that there is a small link at the bottom of the page that says mark as patrolled, and I thought it was the source of all the trouble. Any idea as to what that is about? Regards, SBC-YPR (talk) 10:27, 28 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I've finally managed to wind up the review - the editors have been amazingly cooperative and enthusiastic, and have gone hammer and tongs at the article setting about incorporating the suggestions I made. I've decided to pass it, and a draft of what I plan to put up on the review page is here. Before I post it, I would appreciate it if you went through it and gave me your opinion. Also, I'm not too clear as to how to put up the list of significant contributors : is there a tool/script that I can use or will I have to do it manually? Please clarify. Regards, SBC-YPR (talk) 05:04, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Osteitis fibrosa cystica
Thanks a bunch for the (actual) review over at Talk:Osteitis fibrosa cystica/GA1. I'm getting to work cleaning up now. Just out of curiosity, is there any way you could drop over and explicitly point out where citations are needed, as you mentioned in your review? Strombollii (talk) 16:59, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Haha. Thank you. I didn't think you had, I presumed there was a motive.  I'm honestly stuck, trying to weed my way through the article review and find data that I haven't come across yet.  Anyhow, thank you again, I'm going to do my best to add content this weekend, though I'm not sure when the opportunity will present itself.  =]  Strombollii (talk) 03:54, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Request for mentorship
Hi EyeSerene,

I am working on a review of the Sorraia article. This is my first review, and it is taking some unfortunate turns. One editor that has a history of conflict with the primary contributor to this page has begun contributing to the review, in a manner that has been hostile and uncivil at times. I'm worried that this editor may be continuing an old conflict against a perceived rival instead of working toward a resolution. If you have the time, I would very much like an experienced opinion on the review and any advice as to how you would have done things differently; I think I have made some mistakes here and an experienced eye pointing those out could help me learn from them.

Thanks! --Thesoxlost (talk) 18:35, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Perch
Howdy,

If you still need further information on Operation Perch i am in the process of overhauling the article but most of the information regarding its intention is now there and hopefully better explained.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 16:30, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Regarding Pnz Lehr losses, 1800 within the first few weeks of fighting or is that figure for the entire campaign?--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 14:06, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

A note of gratitude
Thank you so much for your kind guidance and appreciation of my first GA-review. This experience has spurred me on to take part in more reviews in the future. Although real-life is forcing me to take a short wikibreak now, I will be back in a month or so, and I look forward to my next review then! Thanks once again for the award, and for being there all along :-) Regards, SBC-YPR (talk) 12:43, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

17 January 1797
Thanks! The article took a brutal beating during the day though, its gonna take me a while to sort out the mess. Thanks also for the copyedit on Murray Maxwell. The article is now languishing at FAC, unfortunately with little interest.--Jackyd101 (talk) 01:25, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

List vs. prose
The discussion about list vs. prose at GA was not clear. There is an article, Jutsu (Naruto), that I am looking at now that I like. However, before I get too involved I want to be sure that it is not a series of lists. What do you think? Regards, &mdash; Mattisse (Talk) 02:41, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

More vandalism by
On 6 January you blocked for 2 weeks due to repeated vandalism. This user has since made three edits that were each likely intentional vandalism, though more subtle. I would guess that he is experimenting to see what forms of malicious vandalism he is able to get away with. If you have a moment, please look at his latest "" to see if it warrants further blocking or just more warnings. — Shattered Gnome (talk) 18:31, 8 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your prompt attention. — Shattered Gnome (talk) 14:21, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXV (January 2009)
The January 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 03:46, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

mentoring
Hello,

I'm interested in seeing an article I created and made extensive edits to Edelbrock achieve GA status. I've gone through the status criteria and it seems to pass everything. I was wondering if you would take a look and give me some advice. Thanks MiracleMat (talk) 16:28, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks so much for your input. That helps tremendously! MiracleMat (talk) 16:23, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Triple Crown jewels
Thank you for contributions to the project, Great work, especially on Military simulation - hard to believe we didn't have this article before, but thanks to you, we have it now :). May you wear the crowns well.  Cirt (talk) 11:12, 12 February 2009 (UTC)