User:EyeSerene/Archive11

Zanzibar Revolution
Hi, I recently listed the above article at WP:PR (after I delisted it from WP:FAC per recommendations) and noticed that you were interested in this type of articles. I wondered if you might like to review this article for me with an eye on getting a successful FA nom in the future. Many thanks - Dumelow (talk) 19:42, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah the peer review bot closed the review as the article was still listed at FAc for a few days. Ruhrfish has said that he will reopen the review once the FAC has closed, which has now happened.  Hopefully the review will open again within the day.  Thanks for offering to review the article - Dumelow (talk) 12:13, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Thankyou for taking a look at the article. I also couldn't see much wrong with it but it got shot down at FAC and I was told to take it to PR.  A copyedit would be great, I'll leave it up at PR as someone has already offered to review it.  Thanks - Dumelow (talk) 09:16, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Murray Maxwell
Hi, just a note to say thankyou very much for your comments on, copedit of and support for the article on Murray Maxwell, which has just passed at FAC.--Jackyd101 (talk) 07:39, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Astronomical Almanac
I'd appreciate a bit of advice -- still rather new to the wikipedia editing experience.

I noticed something odd while trying to make a little improvement (hopefully) to the article on the (official) Astronomical Almanac -- by adding a few cross-references to other articles about closely related matter. (This is perhaps a first step, to 'let them know' of each other's existence -- possibly some will deserve amalgamation, there are several with similar title and related subject).

About 20 Oct 2008, anonymous 217.57.18.250 added an internet link to an unrelated private web document "Astronomical Almanac" 2009 by Pierpaolo Ricci. I doubt this link should be there, it's got nothing to do with the official publications the subject of the article -- it uses the same name, probably to misleading effect. The link does connect to astronomical data, but it's not "The Astronomical Almanac". Conceivably it deserves a place in one of the generic 'almanac' articles?

I'm still fairly new to this. I've not yet taken anything off any article. Do you think it's appropriate to remove this kind of link? So far I've just commented it with:- "(Not an official publication, but a private document that uses the same name)" -- to prevent people being misled.

I'd appreciate it if you could take a look if you have time. (Also, I'm a bit new to the messaging customs, and not completely sure where to look for any reply to this!) Thanks. Terry0051 (talk) 11:33, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

==> Thanks for your reply, action and info, I'm grateful for the pointers. Terry0051 (talk) 12:23, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Operation Perch
Hi there,

Would you like to take a look over Operation Perch for CE purposes? I believe the article is now complete bar the last section, which still needs to be done.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 19:38, 22 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks :)--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:04, 24 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Just to let you know I do believe i have finished up this article so i dont think i shall be making many more changes to it just yet. But i have left a message with a couple of the other chaps to pipe in if they think there are areas that are still lacking.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 15:59, 15 March 2009 (UTC)


 * No worries :) --EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 09:19, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Mr B
Bless you ! -- R OGER D AVIES  talk 20:37, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * WTH, we all know he deserves it :$ EyeSerene talk 20:49, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks and a request
Thanks for signing up at Peer review/volunteers and for your work doing reviews. It is now just over a year since the last peer review was archived with no repsonse after 14 (or more) days, something we all can be proud of. There is a new Peer review user box to track the backlog (peer reviews at least 4 days old with no substantial response), which can be found here. To include it on your user or talk page, please add. Thanks again, and keep up the good work, Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 04:07, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

GA review
I reviewed Hispanics in the United States Marine Corps. It's a good article and the reviewer was satisfied with my assessment asking me for the next one. Hispanics in the United States Navy, again a good article, but I would ask you as one of our best GA reviewers to take a look and thus make him aware of furter things to improve because the author is very likely to produce a series of articles about Hispanics. Thanks a lot. Greetings Wandalstouring (talk) 13:05, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Re:Hispanics in the United States Navy, Sorry for the late response. Thank you for the advice. Tony the Marine (talk) 07:49, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Cobra: reply
Copied from my talk page just to be sure you see it.

I don't believe your revert was particularly helpful, though I don't intend to change it back because revert wars are equally unhelpful. By reverting, you have reintroduced a stylistic (and an WP:MOS) error; you may have noticed that the section was formerly in chronological order, which is a logical way to present such things. I don't quite understand why you're feeling the need to attribute Cobra to Bradley quite so emphatically and prominently - the text already explained that Cobra was Bradley's brainchild, because Montgomery's early intentions had become outdated. You seem to be seeing POV where none exists, and introducing it where there was none before. EyeSerenetalk 13:55, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

On the contrary my friend, my original edit was designed to bring us back to where we should have been all along - Cobra was a Bradley plan, all the campaign histories agree on that. Introducing Montgomery's issue here is a fringe view at best - I honestly don't think it belongs in the article at all but I agree, edit wars are not good things. II have introduced no error; I am in the process of fixing one. Denial of your POV isn't helpful either. We all have biases; the article as it stood did not conform to what most of the sources tell us. It wasn't Bradley's brainchild *because* of anything Montgomery did. DMorpheus (talk) 14:01, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Osteitis fibrosa cystica
Quick question: finally getting back to polishing the article, and I stumbled across some survival/recurrence rates. Would this be best placed in "Epidemiology" or "Treatment"? Strombollii (talk) 20:30, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Mentorship
I've shamelessly plundered your (deleted) article for the The Academy. Please feel free to do what you will with it :) – Roger Davies  talk 10:05, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Battle of Dunkirk
There has recently been some conjecture as to how to describe the victory by the German forces. Can you or other members of the project group please assist in the discussion on the talk page. I intend to call for a consensus decision in order to establish the infobox statement regarding the outcome of the battle. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 12:53, 2 March 2009 (UTC).

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXVI (February 2009)
The February 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:12, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Removing the threat
One way of winning the battle is encourage the enemy to leave the battle field, and if that doesn't work, force them to. That is your approach, is it not. I do not consider my edits "disruptive". If someone disagrees, they can always discuss it. As for being anti any particular country, I can be whatever I want to be. This does not include my edits on articles. As for my edits, they are intended to be NPOV. I find that quite often the articles have a strong bias to a particular country. I try to redress this sometimes. Others try to be patriotic, and I point this out. Wallie (talk) 17:26, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Again, I have never tried to be disruptive. It is you who is accusing me of this. I note that the Cobber Kain article has been changed to be an allegiance of United Kingdom. I find this outrageous, and put there only to annoy me. I did not suspect anyone's motives until now. It says to assume good faith in Wikipedia. How can I with the implied threats people like yourself are making. Wallie (talk) 18:51, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Now you accuse me of "warring". Obviously if I disagree with something, I will debate it. In this case, Cobber Kain was one of the first RAF aces. Therefore English people will want to claim him as one of their own. This is not the case. Wallie (talk) 18:56, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Zanzibar rev, again
Hi, many thanks for the very thorough copyedit you gave the article. It is much improved over what it had been before. Thanks for the suggestions for further improvement (overlinking etc). I will take a look through the article and check for these things. I have been a bit busy recently but I hope I can get it to FAC again fairly soon. Once again thanks for all your help - Dumelow (talk) 12:38, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

MH Coord
Many thanks! Are you thinking of standing?--Jackyd101 (talk) 18:30, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmmm, I'm pulling out of GA Sweeps myself soon (its virtually dead in the water anyway). The GA process however seems to be gaining strength and I mainly reviewed military GAs anyway, so hopefully it won't have too great an impact on my participation there. You's definately get my vote, your copyediting and involvement are a great asset to the project.--Jackyd101 (talk) 18:44, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Next we'll be meeting at the Watergate! Always enjoyed working with you as well and look forward to more in the future.--Jackyd101 (talk) 19:19, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I would encourage you to run for a position, EyeSerene. You've been an outstanding coordinator since your cooption, and I know you'd make a great coordinator because you have done a good job of holding down the fort during and after absence. TomStar81 (Talk) 06:51, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Nominations for the Military history WikiProject coordinator election
The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process has started; to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 (UTC) on 13 March! This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 18:48, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Favor
Hi EyeSerene. Hope you are keeping well. Sorry to trouble you but I'm after a favor. I saw over at the defunct Wikipedia talk:WikiProject League of Copyeditors that you are willing to take on copy-editing. Currently WP:COMICS have Silver Age of Comic Books in for GA review and it has been suggested we get an outside copy-editor in to give it the once over, see Talk:Silver Age of Comic Books/GA2. I don't know if you can find the time to give it a pass? Don't worry if your familiarity of the topic is low, as that will probably flag up issues we just can't see. Appreciate any help you can give, Hiding T 09:41, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you ever so much for that, that's above and beyond. Hiding T 10:04, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Blocking of User:Fun2335
I was about to turn down the request for this user to be blocked as none of the edits I checked appeared to be vandalism; ok, they weren't good edits, but they all appeared to be in good faith. However, an edit conflict showed that you had blocked this user. I looked as to the reason, and it appears that it you gave abusing multiple accounts as the reason. Are you referring to User:Fun2334? That account was blocked for vandalism, but I can't see any malicious edits there either. Could you please re-review these edits and decide whether or not it is vandalism? Thanks! Stephen! Coming... 13:04, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

User talk:The King's a-poopin'
No problem. :) I debated just doing it myself. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:49, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for understanding :) I've rolled back the user's most recent edits, but the ever-helpful sinebot has unfortunately got to lots of them so they aren't quite so easy to undo. Still, I don't think it will cause any harm (other than a little confusion) if those strange messages stay put... EyeSerene talk 12:57, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think it will, either. People choose strange hobbies. (I say, prior to heading off to devote hours to investigating copyright problems....) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:00, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Heh, we're all a fairly odd bunch. It's part of the site's fascination ;) EyeSerene talk 13:08, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Falaise pocket
Would there be any possibility to make a slight copyedit during this week? I'm willing to put it under FAC next week and would like someone to check its prose a bit. Cheers, --Eurocopter (talk) 10:17, 12 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Due to multiple sources saying different things i was thinking of a slightly edited version of the current paragraph regarding German casualties:
 * "Historians estimate that at least 20,000 German soldiers escaped however some historians suggest that up to perhaps 100,000 German troops, many of them wounded, succeeded in escaping the Allies because of the delay in closing the pocket, they left behind 40,000–50,000 prisoners and over 10,000 dead"
 * What do you think?--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 12:10, 30 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Nice one!
 * Am going to make a few edits to the external links and then thats me done for the day - ive ran out of time.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 12:43, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Excellent stuff!--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 20:00, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

A-class review request
Hey EyeSerene, I was wondering if you could review the Spokane, Washington article in an ACR. After you read the article, I believe all you need to do is apply the A-Class criteria to the article and put whether you believe it is worthy of being A-class in the section dealing with the review in the articles Talk page. Also, in addition to doing the assessment, it would be helpful if you could include some points for improvement. If you are up to review it, notify me here or on my Talk so I can stop looking for reviewers. Thanks! Anon134 (talk) 20:28, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Good Luck
As a fellow Member running for Coordinator, I would like to wish You Good Luck! I Hope You Make it you have done such a great job as a co-opted Coordinator, Keep up the Good Work! Have A Great Day! Lord R. T. Oliver  The Olive Branch 00:24, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

C-Class
Your opinion on C-Class was excelent, and I respect it highly. It is great to see such diversity in the WikiProject. At the end one side will be forced to bow to the consensus of the WikiProject. Keep Up the Good Work :) Have A Great! Lord R. T. Oliver   The Olive Branch 12:09, 16 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks :) EyeSerene talk 13:31, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

c-class
I noted that you gave a neutral vote on the issue of adopting c-class, with the comment ,'I don't object to the motion strongly enough that I would actively oppose it, and accept that it could be implemented easily enough, but I've yet to be convinced that there would be any resulting benefit to article quality. I further believe this should be part of a wider debate about reviewing across all classes; if gaps have opened up in the scale, perhaps we need to re-examine the existing criteria and how they're being applied.'

I have never thought the purpose of a c grade was to improve article quality. I have always believed the purpose of the grading system is to identify to readers, not editors, which articles are good and which bad. The A,B etc. grading system was devised to select which articles were good enough for publication, and presumably by inference, worth people reading. I have added this point on the voting preamble, but currently most articles which we have assessed as 'reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain obvious omissions or inaccuracies'(some 10,000) are being lumped into the category 'start', which contains a rag-bag of articles potentially with virtually no content whatsoever, or facts which are wholly unchecked. That is, some 10,000 of our articles with reasonable informative content are being dismissed compared to only 4,500 being acknowledged. This was not the intention of those who designed the grades originally, and is the reason a new grade has had to be introduced. i was hoping you might reconsider these points. Sandpiper (talk) 09:05, 17 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I have no statistics on how much readers look at article grading. In real world conversation when the subject of wiki accuracy comes up (which I am pleased to say seems to be more often these days indicating wiki's impact) I always tell people to learn about article history and talk pages and check them to see what editor think about a page. I have advocated placing grades on the front page rather than the talk page for some time, but this is not very meaningfull unless a decent system of grades can be sorted out first. It seems to me that while you and others may be right that a c grade doesn't help people interested in creating fantastic articles, it does help those interested in creating a body of worthwhile articles on a broad range of subjects, which is really what an encyclopedia is supposed to be. Refusing to adopt the grade sems to me simply obstructing the efforts of others when actually introducing it would be essentially effortless and in itself have some modest benefits for mil hist. Sandpiper (talk) 10:02, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Coordinator
It seems we have our tenth official candidate with 20 or 20+ endorsements, congratulations! Have A Great Day! Lord R. T. Oliver  The Olive Branch 12:19, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Coordinators
There are currently 12 members with 20 or 20+, and it has been less than a week so far, that means there is two spots left. The turnout has been great. Have A Great Day! Lord R. T. Oliver  The Olive Branch 21:15, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Military history WikiProject coordinator election
The Military history WikiProject coordinator election has started. We will be selecting coordinators from a pool of eighteen to serve for the next six months. Please vote here by 23:59 (UTC) on Saturday, 28 March! Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 00:50, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Maxwell copyedit
Hi EyeSerene. As you have no doubt noticed, I have been quite slack and have still not made the changes to Joseph Maxwell in preparation for FAC. I have been pushing the article further back on my list and, as it has been nearly three months, I was wondering if you would be willing to swap Maxwell on your pending list for Edgar Towner? I believe Towner is ready for FAC (pending you magical copyediting skills of course ;-)), and to save your frustrations no doubt, it would probably be better if you were able to copyedit Towner and when I have finally got around to making the changes to Maxwell I will bring it back and see if you are willing to give it a copy-edit then. If you are too busy or would rather not copy-edit either article, then please do not hesitate to say so. Thanks mate, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 21:56, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, EyeSerene! Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 08:31, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

FA categorization of Warfare
Hi EyeSerene. Sandy and I noticed that the warfare category of FAs has reached over 200 articles. Usually at this point we begin to subdivide the category. Could you please give your opinion on whether or how we should do this? Wikipedia talk:FA Thanks! Karanacs (talk) 14:50, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

No Holding Back
I haven't got my copy yet but this might interest you http://stonebooks.com/archives/050619.shtml Keith-264 (talk) 20:14, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I do own a copy of this - an amazing book! You both should really enjoy it ;)--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 11:25, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

I've got a copy but it's not with me. As you can see in the review, Reid has a rather dry sense of humour as well as sound scholarship.[;-)Keith-264 (talk) 11:39, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

At last I've pulled me finger out and got my copies of No Holding Back and Fields of Fire so I'll be gleaning from them directly.Keith-264 (talk) 14:21, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Congrats!
Congrats on your election as a Coordinator of the Military history Wikiproject! In keeping with the tradition of the project and in honor of your achievement, I present you with these stars. TomStar81 (Talk) 00:52, 29 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I am honored that I was elected to my new position of assistant coordinator, and look forward to working with you for the next six months. Lord Oliver   The Olive Branch 01:31, 29 March 2009 (UTC)