User:EyeSerene/Archive12

Thank you!
Thank you very much for your support for me in the Military History coordinator elections. 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. – Joe   N  01:44, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the information I have removed the image from my Signature. Have A Great Day! Lord Oliver  The Olive Branch 12:54, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Administrative irregularities
Hi, you helped me half a year ago with some Administrative irregularities on the Computer graphics article, see here.

Now a noticed a similarity with the Henri Fayol and the Administrative theory article. Some beginner moved the Henri Fayol article, and I guess nobody was paying attention. If you can recreate the Henri Fayol article in it's 3 march state, I will wikify the article some more and add some more biographical details. Thank you. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 11:32, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Barnstar
Hey! I'm thinking of making some kind of airborne warfare Barnstar; maybe prior to seeing if anyone wants to set up an airborne warfare taskforce. But mainly because I'm the only person really doing AW articles and I wouldn't mind saying thanks to some people who've helped me. I'm thinking of a parachute as the symbol, maybe...I'm running short of any other ideas for an airborne warfare logo. Anyway, any help you can give would be widely appreciated! Skinny87 (talk) 19:40, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Wow! That's absolutely brilliant, thanks! If you could put that into a barnstar I'd be really greatful! Skinny87 (talk) 21:14, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I hadn't really thought about colour - I leave it up to you and your expertise! Skinny87 (talk) 07:51, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * That's awesome, it looks even better than it did! Please, add it to the list! Skinny87 (talk) 16:15, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Red does look better, I have to admit. Perhaps I shouldn't have been so impulsive giving them out just now - a limited edition barnstar, perhaps ;) Skinny87 (talk) 16:35, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

American Forces casualties in the war in Afghanistan
I have stated my opinion and my respons at the deletion discussion. But, like I said over there, I have a compromise proposol if you wish to discuss it so we can not delete the article but still make it as not to be too much of a memorial. My proposal is to delete the names of all soldiers killed in Afghanistan, Pakistan and Uzbekistan and just leave the paragraph which states the 608 number of killed in those countries with icasualties.org as it's source. But, we leave the names of the 28 soldiers who died in other countries while supporting combat operations in Afghanistan, along with their sources, so that the deaths of those 28 can be confirmed and linked to the war. Is this OK?BobaFett85 (talk) 10:48, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Icasualties.org is more reliable because it lists all of the names given by the DoD itself, obviously the DoD has stated a lesser number than the number of the names they have given. Also icasualties.org is a realy notable site since it is used when giving numbers of war dead by all of the major news outlets, including AP, BBC and others. There is no original research here. First of, 636 names have been listed in the article with solid references, thus 636 died. As to explain the source. Icasualties.org, a highly notable source, has listed the names of 608 soldiers to have died in Afghanistan or as a result of wounds received in Afghanistan. Another 24 soldiers were listed to have died in other Arabian countries, while supporting operations in Afghanistan. Also, another four servicemen have been found to be missing from icasualties.org's list, but were confirmed by DoD to be victims of operation Enduring freedom, their deaths are also listed with references. Thus the final number is 636. No original research here involved. Again, all of the names given by icasualties were given by DoD.BobaFett85 (talk) 11:52, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

The material was already in Coalition casualties in Afghanistan for years, I just moved it to the new article. So why would it be cause for my block if I only reverted it to what it was for years? It was there for years before this situation and it was edited by dozens of users who didn't have a problem with it like you and Nick. In any case we will see the result of the current discussion. And I think Nick should cool down a bit since he threatened that other user with blocking for some kind of a personal attack on you. As far as I see he didn't attack you personaly at all, he just asked you a question.BobaFett85 (talk) 12:01, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Regarding your last message. I can only say one thing... Thanks, realy. As for that other thing, I think in that case you should also notify that anonymous user that constantly changes his IP over at Coalition casualties in Afghanistan not to reinsert all of that material into the article because that's just what he did today. I reverted him. You should tell him on the discussion page. Could you at least tell me you agree on the number with me? 636? icasualties.org has listed 608 to have died eather in Afghanistan, Pak., Uzbek. or military hospitals from wounds received in Afghanistan. It also lists another 24 to have died in other Arabian countries in support of the war. I also provided references for four more who are not listed on icasualties.org. Icasualtie.org's list at least confirms that the DoD's is incorrect, at the very least that they don't match up, even though all of icasualties.org's names were confirmed by DoD itself.BobaFett85 (talk) 12:37, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Listen, I was thinking, and I think I have found a solution for the dilema. Currently it is still unclear what the result of the nomination will be, five have opposed deletion, five have confirmed deletion and one said to withdraw the nomination until the dispute is resolved. Thus we have a standof as some would say. So I think I have found a solution satisfactory for both sides. The main problem here is the Memorial rule. I will tell you now, in principle I support that rule, I am against lists of soldiers killed in wars. But I clearly made my point clear why I wanted the list, to shorten that previous article and to find a definite number of soldiers killed. So my solution is the following - We delete all of the names, all of them, but we will make up a new list, a chronological list of attacks on US forces, a chronological list of deaths of US soldiers in the war. But we will not put the names of the soldiers, just the numbers of how many died in specific incidents. A kind of list like those others: List of insurgent fatality reports in Iraq, List of insurgent fatality reports in Afghanistan, List of Iraqi security forces fatality reports, List of Afghan security forces fatality reports, Timeline of Somali war (which in essence only lists deaths of people in the war by date). If it would be in that form then the article would not be a memorial. What do you say, would that be alright?BobaFett85 (talk) 08:19, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Reply to your comment over at the discussion page on the table. What you said is an excelent idea, I was thinking to do something about that, so the article wouldn't look like preferences are given towards one specific number. But the problem is how do we know which soldiers the DoD left out of their number. As stated according to icasualties.org's methodology all of the names that are on their list were confirmed by DoD as OEF casualties, but obviously the DoD has gotten it's math wrong by seven. It would be excess if we made to separate tables. Damn, it would be great if the DoD had an online list of fatalities so then we would know which were left out. What do you think?BobaFett85 (talk) 11:16, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I would like to discuss with you over at the discussion page of Coalition casualties in Afghanistan Talk:Coalition casualties in Afghanistan what to do with the list of specific incidents of deaths, an anonymous user is constantly reinserting the list which contains the names of US, British, Canadian and other soldiers killed in the war. I have been constantly removing the list but he keeps reinserting it. What do you think we should to. I have again removed most of the list, but this time not all of it. I removed the names of Canadian, British and Australian soldiers killed since they all already have their own articles about the casualtis they have sustained and those articles even list them by names and also removed the names of US soldiers because like we concluded at the discussion at that other article the list would be too long. I left the names and incidents of all Europian soldiers deaths in the war in the list so to not delete it totaly and changed the name of the section to List of Europian soldiers deaths since a user put in the template of the Afghan war links to articles on US, British, Canadian and other deaths, the other deaths link links to this exact list. So what do you think?BobaFett85 (talk) 11:28, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

American Forces casualties in the war in Afghanistan & Coalition casualties in in Afghanistan
Coalition casualties in in Afghanistan was changed and modified by BobaFett85, and part of the data recovered to American Forces casualties in the war in Afghanistan, in the original there was info about age & hometown of the soldiers and links to relevant stories about them. Now in the new one, there is only place for small info, and even that is put on for deletion, don't you have any respect at all for your troops ? Perelada (talk) 10:55, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

It was't an "attack" on you, only a question ... (and sorry about my english, but my mother tongue is flemish) Perelada (talk) 11:21, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Ok, but somehow I find it useful to add their age of date of birth ... so I don't know why that was left out ? Perelada (talk) 11:28, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Motives
I don't not have any opinion about peoples' motives as you say. I think it is unfair that I get threatened with another block, when I am just trying to discuss things. Is this way it is always going to be - if someone disagrees, they have to be kept quiet? I genuinely think these articles I am discussing are heavily biased. The word British keeps changing over time. I did not realize until I investigated that only one of the five commanders of the Battle of Britain was English. Do you not think that it significant? It is called a "Decisive British victory", and yet three of the five commanders are not British. Wallie (talk) 13:30, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Comment on coordinators page
Sorry if you took offense at my comments on the coordinators page… I love puns and was trying to continue your string… — Bellhalla (talk) 18:42, 30 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Snipe... Sniper... maybe it was too tangential to Weaponry, but I was running out of ideas :D EyeSerene talk 18:55, 30 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, don't I feel like an idiot now… :D — Bellhalla (talk) 19:11, 30 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Heh, a good illustration of the problems of communicating via text alone :P I'm really pleased you were elected - you'll be an excellent coordinator, and it's shaping up to be an interesting six months! Best regards, EyeSerene talk 19:24, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Re Yo lee cornith
Cool, sorry for making the mistake, I'm still new to this game but am trying to be good. Thanks :) Fol de rol troll (talk) 22:24, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of AnyLogic
Dear EyeSerene,

Thank you for your message to me.

I am was who created the article AnyLogic, and as you may imagine I am very sad about its possible deletion. You said that I am welcome to to address your concerns about the article, I'd love to edit it.

I have posted some comments about notability of the software on the. I use this software for a few years, know that it is a key-player in the simulation industry. Could you please help by telling me what materials should I add to prove the notability.

The original purpose of this article is to let people know about the software, and describe its application areas and multi-method modeling approach. Unfortunately, I did not finished to write it (it is still marked as a stub) and other people have done some 'advertising' changes. I know that Wikipedia is not an AD dashboard. I will modify the article, remove all marketing messages written by others. AnyLogic is distributed through distributors network world-wide, the most probably some of them have tried to add marketing messages into the articles. As I sad I will modify the article and I will try keep it non-marketing in future.

Regarding spam attempts - I do not like spam on any account, but I am not sure how I can prevent them. Any ideas?

Thank you very much for you time to read this, Sergey Suslov (talk) 10:24, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

- Dear EyeSerene,

I found several good reviews of AnyLogic in Russian language. And even there is a book "Karpov, Yu (2006) Simulation of systems. Introduction in modeling with AnyLogic 5 – SPb.: BHV Petersburg ISBN 5-94157-148-8. The book is in Russian language and it is used in studying AnyLogic. Does it help to prove the notability? May I use Russian materials as a references for English Wikipedia?

Thank you, Sergey Suslov (talk) 09:41, 10 April 2009 (UTC) --

Thank you very much for quick reply. I have added some references on the scientific papers that proves most of the things written in the text. I've tried to add an article from reliable journals on each problem domain where users apply AnyLogic. I am going to proceed with writing this article, describe development environment, language notation (differences with UML) etc. What is your opinion - is current editing enough to remove 'delete' template?

Another question: what is the time limit for editing - when my page will be deleted, if the notability is not proved? I hope I have proved it by somehow, but understand that there may be different opinions.

Sorry to bother you with question, but I am still a beginner in Wikipedia, but I am studding :) Sergey Suslov (talk) 15:36, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

How it would look like
'''I have finished what the article would look like if I would edit it right now. Tell me what you think? This is without the list of hostile incidents incured by the US forces. This has been agreed to in principle by EnigmaMcmxc and Lawrencama and done per discussion with them. We would state both the icasualties number and the DoD number, both of them, we wouldn't leave out any of them. Yes the official lesser number reported by DoD is the official one, but most medial outlets, CNN, BBC, AP and others are reporting the higher number given by icasualties and most regard icasualties's number more notable than DoD's. But I have laid it out and now several editors have agreed to present both numbers and per Lawrencama's proposols to point out how we came to icasualties's number. I have now come to the point that I am to tired to discuss this any more and if you still want it like that I would also go the extra mile and forget the list of incidents and not iclude it in the article. We would only maybe list several notable incidents of large numbers of fatalities from large battles like operation Red Wing, opeartion Anaconda or battle of Wanat. Send me a reply please.'''

As of March 27 2009, 635 U.S. servicemen have been killed in the War in Afghanistan. Of this number, 451 have died in hostile action and 184 in non-hostile incidents. Included in these numbers are four CIA operatives that were killed in Afghanistan, two in an ambush, one in a prison uprising in November 2001, and one in an accident. One other CIA operative was killed in a vehicle accident in Kazakhstan. A civilian DoD employee was also killed in action while supporting Operation Enduring Freedom.

Of the American deaths, 608* have died in Afghanistan, Pakistan and Uzbekistan, while 27 died in: Kuwait, Bahrain, Kazakhstan, Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, Qatar, the Arabian sea, the Persian Gulf, the Red Sea and the Indian Ocean, while supporting operations in Afghanistan.

As of March 17, 2009, 2,737 American soldiers have been wounded in action in Afghanistan, with 1,770 not returning to duty.

''Note: The number 608 is based on the list of names provided by icasualties.org. It should be noted this number is by seven higher than the DoD's officialy stated number of deaths which says 601, even though all of the names listed at icasualties.org were confirmed by the DoD.''

Fatalities
''Note: These numbers were provided by icasualties.org. To confirm the numbers are correct go to and use the filter to show the exact number of deaths per country of death. Following the use of the filter in the bottom left corner is the number of names listed per country of death.''

''It should also be noted that four deaths have been included in this table that are not on icasualties.org's list but were confirmed to be related to the war in Afghanistan. Those were the deaths of: the Civilian DoD employee, a CIA operative in Khazakhstan, a sailor lost in the Indian ocean and a soldier who was on leave from her unit in the United States.''

Spiderman
That's not fair. I am certainly not trying to do this. I have been discussing things on the talk page. I think the articles related to the Battle of Britain have already improved. I have conceded quite a few points too. Wallie (talk) 19:52, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXVII (March 2009)
The March 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) 02:30, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Request
Hey EyeSerene. Would you be able to copyedit Design 1047 battlecruiser? It's in a FAC, and prose (specifically, redundancies in the prose) has been raised as a problem. — Ed 17  (Talk /  Contribs)  01:37, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

WP:MHCON
Hi EyeSerene. I believe I should have 341 points. I had 276 before. Thanks  YellowMonkey  ( cricket calendar poll! ) 02:26, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Barbara Everard
Dear EyeSerene,

Thank you for your comments and offer to help, which is much appreciated.

As regards notability, the fact that my mother's work appeared in print on many occasions should be enough to qualify here for inclusion in Wiki. The article that I wrote contains references to these and could have links to the bookselllers incorporated. The directors of The Medici Society and Loe Books would also add to the reference source - the former having 950 of her works, the latter 8. Copies of Wild Flowers of the World can be bought on Ebay as can other titles in which her work appeared. RHS Kew Herbarium have around a hundred studies as well.

If you would like to meet me on my personal email: mreverard@btinternet.com I would find it easier to communicate with you - I found the logging on and submitting process not very user friendly.

In the meantime, I am building a website: www.barbara-everard.com to which you can logon now. I have just added a biography page - or at least it was being uploaded before I stated to write to you.

Kind regards

Everardmr01 (talk) 13:16, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Zanzibar Revolution
No problems! Your help with a copy edit has undoubtedly improved the article overall. I don't think I ever will get the hang of FAC standard prose. Still, as you say, it seems to be going OK so far - Dumelow (talk) 13:46, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Crisis
An unexpected development on Wikipedia that concerns us has been brought to our attention by Moonriddengirl. Please follow this link for more information. TomStar81 (Talk) 23:32, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Request
I know you're going to strangle me for asking, but here it goes: Would you be able to add a copyedit of Operation Charnwood to your "to copyedit" list? It's not at all urgent, so feel free to take your time getting to it. Cam (Chat) 18:51, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Could you please discuss...
Could you please discuss your use of WP:PUFF ?

This essay was the work of a small group of like-minded wikipedians. According to this exchange you were the very first person to reference this essay who was not one of its authors.

One of the authors claims no-one has questioned their use of this essay. It seems to me that User:THF routinely cites WP:PUFF as if it were an official Wikipedia policy. THF's assertion that no one has questioned his use of the essay is simply not true. I know I have publicly questioned THF's referencing it as if it were an official policy several times. And I see another person questioning his usage of it, right on his talk page.

I just checked. I see you are an administrator. How do you think user's essays should qualify for being moved to the Wikipedia name space? I too have a number of essays of my own -- in my user space. If I were to follow THF's example I would simply claim authority under WP:BOLD, and move them to the Wikipedia name space.

How do you think those who notice essays being cited as if they were official policies should try to get their concerns addressed?

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 23:34, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Enforcing WP:NOT
Hi EyeSerene,

I'm trying to remove memorial-related trivia from the page Canadian Forces casualties in Afghanistan as per WP:NOT and WP:WikiProject Trivia Cleanup, but have been reverted twice by a user that is under restrictions.

Would you be interested in commenting to help resolve this at the discussion here?

Regards,

70.50.9.134 (talk) 17:40, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

User:Those Kids
Hi, EyeSerene. You wrote once before to about possible vandalism coming from the same IP address (which vandalism I've documented at Long-term abuse). Those Kids has asked me for assistance again, but I think an admin is more qualified to provide it. Would you mind communicating again with Those Kids? Thanks. Powers T 21:38, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Operation Perch
Er, how can a 'follow-up' be immediate? :o)Keith-264 (talk) 09:38, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Good point... fixed EyeSerene talk 09:51, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Just having a giggle!Keith-264 (talk) 10:19, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * P EyeSerene talk 10:28, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

From the information posted on the Perch talkpage it looks like the Planning section should look something so:


 * 1) Perch was the drive by 7th Arm to Pincon
 * 2) Wild Oats was the pincer attack and airborne drop
 * 3) Airborne drop was cancelled
 * 4) Perch was revised – 7th Arm was ordered to swing to the south of Caen rather than Pincon and the revision included the Highland attack i.e. Perch revised included the Wild Oats plan but minus the airborne drop.

Ellis and Stacey both describe a pincer attack taking place but don’t name it; Buckley and Taylor imply that the entire Pincer attack, minus airborne contribution, was Perch but revised. Is it OR to jump to this conclusion?--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 14:59, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

"and it was only with the aid of heavy artillery support that, after five hours of fighting, the 6th Durham Light Infantry (DLI) were able to clear the German front line positions and push two companies forward to capture Verrières." Doesn't this show a misunderstanding of British methods? Infantry firepower was based on field artillery. That's why David French got it slightly wrong when he concluded that British thinking between the wars emphasised firepower yet had procured weapons too light to generate it. The 25pdr was integral to the British infantry platoon's fighting technique - hence British forward artillery observers having the power to compel artillery fire rather than request it. Keith-264 (talk) 18:22, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Funnily enough I was just re-reading that bit and thinking I hadn't phrased it very well. It smacks of the old dictum about "the poorer the infantry, the more artillery support they need". I'll reword. EyeSerene talk 17:45, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Better? EyeSerene talk 17:50, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I think so, the implied criticism has gone and the reasoning is in.TaKeith-264 (talk) 18:25, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Great. Proof-reading is always very welcome, especially from editors like you who know their stuff ;) EyeSerene talk 19:24, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually, reading stuff by people who know what they're doing often makes latent thoughts I've got come to the surface - the idea taht the 25pdr was the principal infantry weapon was bubbling away for ages before glancing at that passage made it pop-up. TaKeith-264 (talk) 20:22, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Just like to say thanks to both of your for all the copyediting and proofreading, ive finished off my uni assignments (for know!) so i should be able to lend more of a hand again now.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 09:33, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Student!!?? How dare you get out of bed before 2 in the afternoon! Shameful:o).Keith-264 (talk) 11:11, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * How i wish i could do that, but i also work full time to - more like not going to bed until after 2 on a regular basis...--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 14:03, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Ain't no fun being a student these days... EyeSerene talk 16:59, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I have relooked at the sources and wrote up in note form the timeline and events of what happened planning wise in the Perch talk page. Do you wanna take a look and we can see how we can proceede from there?--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 18:37, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Heh
Indeed. Sorry I accidentally scrubbed that earlier. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 20:16, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Milhist newsletter
I was going to use it to drum up reviewers and have got something drafted. What did you have in mind? Roger Davies talk 10:20, 1 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Uncharacteristically, I hadn't forgotten and funnily enough wrote to MBK unprompted this ack emma along precisely the same lines :).  Roger Davies  talk 11:56, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

GOOD EVENING!
hELLO thanks for your letter and you're welcome for my contributs... but please dont say that my contributs are of dubious quality!! They all come from books in commerce edited by serious editors... and written from "experten", most of them anglo-saxon... So I would like to know better what do you have in mind when you say that my references are of dubious quality! :) SOrry but I don't agree and I feel a little offended! You (sorry what 's your name? ) should explain such a quote!! I write for italian newspapers since 1987, a novel of mine is going to be published, and have have some professionality in writing... i teach in public italian school since 1987, teaching history geography and literature - you can check some of my articles in the web, as they are signed with my real name - SO please: I respect you as an admin(istrator?) of wikipedia... but I am not used to such warning and advices... :) If you want I can stop to write for wikipedia right now if you have the authority to ask me that! And I will never do it again!!! are you talking about my quotes of italian fighters? You dont like what is written? ANd why? Write it down besides the quote explaining why, Is not correct that you warn me "be careful" of what? If You read the pages of wikipedia you will find tons of actions described in them... The ones that i described are of support to what has been written immediately before... I am not trying to re-write the rules... If you dont like some action I described you can cancel it... (can I do the same when I find something that is not in the rules? Something that is not balanced, for instance? I mean: if you say that the Spitfire V was superior to the Macchi 205 even if this is not true?) Everithing I write is quoted, something that is not so usual as I have been many times the first to put references in several articles... I started to write the actions of italian fighters when, after I quoted that it was not true that the italian planes were inferior to Allied models, somebody started to cancel them or to say that it was dubios what I wrote...so I gave instances, examples.... here in wikipedia I am writing as I read many pages with scarce informations and with mistakes... I am writing free and just to give my contributs for people that has not access to some knowledges and sources of informations... Is it possible to speak to somebody that has not a nick name? Mine is Gian Piero Milanetti --Gian piero milanetti (talk) 19:57, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXVIII (April 2009)
The April 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) 23:01, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

GA Sweeps update
Hello, I hope you are doing well. I am contacting you because you have contributed or expressed interest in the GA sweeps process. Last month, only two articles were reviewed. This is definitely a low point after our peak at the beginning of the process with 163 articles reviewed in September 2007. After nearly two years, the running total has just passed the 50% mark. In order to expediate the reviewing, several changes have been made to the process. A new worklist has been created, detailing which articles are left to review. All exempt and previously reviewed articles have already been removed from the list. Instead of reviewing by topic, you can consider picking and choosing whichever articles interest you.

All exempt articles that have reached FA status have now been moved to a separate section at the end of the running total page. I went through all of the members' running totals and updated the results to reflect the move. As a result your reviewed article total may have decreased a bit. After removing duplicate articles and these FAs, the running total leaves us at ~1,400 out of 2,808 articles reviewed.

If you currently have any articles on hold or at GAR, please consider concluding those reviews and updating your results. I'm hoping that this new list and increased efforts can help us to increase the number of reviews. We are always looking for new members to assist with the remaining articles, so if you know of anybody that can assist please direct them to the GA sweeps page. In addition, for every member that reviews 100 articles or has a significant impact on the process, will get an award when they reach that mark. If only 14 editors achieve this feat starting now, we would be done with Sweeps! Of course, having more people reviewing less articles would be better for all involved, so please consider asking others to help out. If you have any questions about the process, reviewing, or need help with a particular article, please contact me or OhanaUnited and we'll be happy to help. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 03:26, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Albuera
Dera EyeSerene,

You have left me a cryptic message about being unhappy with my summary of some recent edits. You have also apparently deleted all my recent May edits without leaving a trace in the article history. I would appreciate it if you would explain what you did and why you did it. I would also appreciate it if you would restore the material unless you have some actual substantive objection to the additions.

I added new material about the terrain of the battlefield that could hardly be controversial even by the touchy standards of those who guard the sanctity of this article.

I also made another effort to correct the statement that Lumley took command of the cavalry on May 15. (As you must know by now, the actual substitution of Lumley for Long did not take place until the battle was underway onnthe 16th.) I tried to do this without removing the existing references to comply with the points made by Carre and others. If I have offended anyone I apologize, but I thought the main objective of Wikipedia is to be factually correct. Perhaps you can make the factual correction I am trying to introduce in a less controversial manner, and for that I would be grateful.

Sincerely,

Marshalb Marshalb (talk) 03:50, 8 May 2009 (UTC)