User:EyeSerene/Archive14

GA Sweeps July update
Thanks to everyone's dedicated efforts to the GA Sweeps process, a total of 290 articles were swept in June! Last month was our second most successful month in reviewing articles (after May). We are currently over 70% done with Sweeps, with just under 800 articles left to review. With nearly 50 members, that averages out to about 15 articles per person. If each member reviews an article every other day this month (or several!), we'll be completely finished. This may sound difficult, but if everyone completes their reviews, Sweeps would be completed in less than two years when we first started (with only four members!). With the conclusion of Sweeps, each editor could spend more time writing GAs, reviewing at the backlogged GAN, or focusing on other GARs. Again, I want to thank you for using your time to ensure the quality of the older GAs. Feel free to recruit other editors who have reviewed GANs in the past and might be interested in the process. The more editors, the less the workload, and hopefully the faster this will be completed. If you have any questions about reviews or the process let me know and I'll be happy to get back to you. Again, thank you for taking the time to help with the process, I appreciate your efforts! --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 17:46, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

GA
Thanks for the kudos! Done my review, but I'm gonna re-read it again a bit later on so I imagine I'll probably wanna change it myself. No sneak previews Ed17, restrain yourself! Ranger Steve (talk) 12:14, 3 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks eyeserene. I've modded the review accordingly (especially the weasel-words bit.  Good catch, I forgot to recommend putting it in more detail later on in the review!).  If you get time can you give it a quick skim so that I can submit it later today?  Cheers Ranger Steve (talk) 10:06, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Me
Thanks for your help. In the past most of the admins I have dealt with have been average to not really helpful to say the least. What is particularly heartening is to see an admin who can see the good guys from the, let say, not so good. So your comments are appreciated and did not go unnoticed. As Shakespeare once said of Henry V, "Once more unto the breach, dear friends once more" - and lets hope that breach is clear. Dapi89 (talk) 20:01, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. If I may, another editor (Minorhstorian) is also on the receiving end of Kurfurst's rants. Please see the Aircraft of the Battle of Britain article in which the rules are made up by KF who continues to contradict even his own rules. Other articles - the Supermarine Spitfire operational history and Battle of Britain are other pages in which he expects everyone else to do as their told while he does as he likes. It would be good if you could drop in from time to time when he comes back to see for yourself what goes on, if the talk pages are not enough! Thanks. Dapi89 (talk) 23:02, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Cheers. That's it for now! I have been following KF's page - that stuff about me being anti-German is funny. My main page indicates that most of the articles I have created or helped with are German fighter aces! Hardly "anti-German"! KF's favourite accussation is to reverse a point or criticism made against him and direct it towards someone else. Personally I think its because he struggles to invent any complaints of his own. I think it is easy to understand what it is like now! Dapi89 (talk) 10:54, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Spanish Empire
Hi there - I'm not proposing a protection, yet, but it's notable how three days after your prior protect elapsed, Cosialscastells is back. This guy just doesn't give up! The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 12:49, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
 * OK maybe it is time for a protect. He's done it a second time now   The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 16:34, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Protected for 6 months this time - hope this helps. EyeSerene talk 19:40, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 13:22, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Battle of Belgium
If you have time could you look at this page and tell me if you think it stands a shot at GA? Cheers. Dapi89 (talk) 13:06, 4 July 2009 (UTC) Cheers. Dapi89 (talk) 11:30, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you
Thanks for your response message of 30 June about the sockpuppetry &c. (I've been away for a few days, hence slow to acknowledge.) As it turns out, another admin has verified the sockpuppetry and blocked the s.p. With thanks for your input. Terry0051 (talk) 18:56, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
 * (And thanks also for the additional info --- Terry.) Terry0051 (talk) 20:27, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you also
Thank you for your message on my talk page, I will make every effort to follow your advice. I've replied on my talk page.

By the way - I had previously posted essentially the same message to Ward20 and MastCell that was posted to the alleged (because I'd never heard of him/her before he/she edited Lyme disease's Discussion page) banned editor. It seems odd that that wasn't noted. Simesa (talk) 21:42, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Desiphral
I have unblocked after considering his posts on the mailing list WikiEN-l. I ran a checkuser on him which shows no improper editing in the recent past and none that showed evidence of either paid editing or editing by other persons. I think this experience has resulted in him gaining considerable insight into the matters involved and I do not expect future problems. However, I will monitor his editing on a regular basis.Fred Talk 22:15, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Edgar Towner
Hi EyeSerene. Thank you very much for copyediting the above; as usual you have done a brilliant job! Hopefully I can take the article along to FAC now with few hiccups along the way. :) However, I believe this is in order:


 * You were, and are, thoroughly deserving of the gong! Thanks for everything, mate. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 00:29, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

re: Running late
If you need a hand, just shout. EyeSerene talk 19:21, 9 July 2009 (UTC)


 * It would be great if you could come up with some ideas for the wishlists I've added to the Academy courses section. And, of course, tweak any currently there that you feel are misfilled or poorly titled. TIA  Roger Davies  talk 18:22, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Military history/Academy/Reviewing featured articles - Does this wishlist item refer to how to go about inspecting FAR articles or just something general?  YellowMonkey  ( cricket calendar poll! ) paid editing=POV 16:09, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XL (June 2009)
The June 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) 22:05, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Long wikibreak
Hey, ES&mdash;long time no see! I just got back from a long wikibreak; hopefully my activity will return to normal. With that said, could we revisit some of the problems with Mr. Todd's article and see if we might (or I might, if you're too busy) finally go for that final push?

Cheers! &mdash; Coralmizu (Mizu onna sango15) Drop a line  04:16, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Edits by By78
Hello there,

I noticed you recently blocked user Chanakyathegreat for 6 months with regards to his disagreements with user By78. While I am not questioning administrator decisions I would like to bring to light By78's edits of Indian articles which seem to conflict with Wikipedia's NPOV Policy. If you look at his contribution page, you will notice that he has consistently been vandalizing pages related to India with irrelevant details about China as well as making edits without discussing them on the article's talk page. It seems to me that his edits are strongly geared towards pushing his biased point of view and I don't feel that his edits contribute to Wikipedia in a positive way. While it is wrong for any user to use Wikipedia to push their political agenda, it seems wrong to me that you would block Chanakya the great for 6 months while issuing By78 a simple slap on the wrist.

Thanks

99.238.167.207 (talk) 03:34, 15 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your note. The differing blocks were a simple reflection of the edit histories of the two editors - Chanakyathegreathas a long record of disruption, whereas it was By78's first offence. As an administrator I can't really get involved in content issues (unless it's blatant vandalism or something similar) because these are for editors to work out between themselves, so you might be best bringing up your concerns with By78 either on the various article talk-pages or on their user talk-page. If they fail to provide reliable sources and discuss their edits, edit-war or otherwise resume editing disruptively, of course I'll be happy to step in. EyeSerene talk 07:22, 15 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I understand that chankyathegreat has been a Wikpedia user for a much longer time and has been a disruption in the past but I can't say that justifys By78's edits. By78 claims to be quashing Indian "triumphalism" on pages that are related to India by making modifications to these articles without discussing them on the talk page. In addition, he appears to have a blatant Chinese bias judging by some of the modifications he has made. For example, in the Mumbai article, he uploaded 20 pictures of slums in the city and attempted to vandalize the Mumbai page. I have no objections against letting him edit the page but he should do so in a manner where he consults others prior to making edits. I feel that if chankyathegreat is being punished for pushing his POV then By78 is guilty of the very same crime. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.238.167.207 (talk) 14:03, 17 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi EyeSerene,

You need to have a look at By78's youtube page here: http://www.youtube.com/user/by78. Take your time & go through his favorites. This user is incredibly biased towards China and is always looking to vandalize articles related to India. If you go through his edit history you can see that he has a habit of making comments that are totally uncalled for. For eg; even on http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vertical_launching_system&action=history page related to VLS he said something like "where's the hindu pride". He doesn't respect other editors while debating. I don't know he gives the impression of being on the Chinese Communist Party's Propaganda payroll. 41.136.232.224 (talk) 09:33, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

GA Review
Hi again Eyeserene. The GA review I did will be coming up for reassessment shortly. I'm a bit concerned that the article still seems a little short of GA, and the editor hasn't (yet) taken all of my suggestions on board. I made the suggestions because I thought that would make it GA though, so without doing them it still seems short to me. Anyway, I've knocked up a very rough sandbox version of the article to demonstrate what I meant, because I wouldn't like to fail it. Equally though I don't want to recommend a version that wouldn't be GA! Before I reply to him on the talk page could you possibly have a very quick look here if you have time? I must emphasise it's very draft, I just wanted to give more of an idea of what I was talking about in my review for the editor to work from. Alternatively do you think perhaps the actual article as the editor has changed it is up to scratch now? Cheers in advance Ranger Steve (talk) 08:54, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Unblock still listed as on hold
see here  Enigma msg  20:49, 15 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks Enigmaman; I'm not sure what to do about that one to be honest. Personally I think they should probably remain blocked given their previous record, but Nihonjoe was reviewing the appeal and there was no response to my AN thread (now archived here). EyeSerene talk 08:10, 16 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I was looking at the category unblocks on hold and this one has been outstanding for a while. The category should be cleared out, one way or another.  Enigma msg  18:20, 16 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Nihonjoe has dealt with it. EyeSerene talk 13:03, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

re: Thanks
I fully concur with SBHB - as a community we sometimes seem to excel at setting people up only to knock them down, and as it's often our best and brightest that step up to take on responsibility, the very editors we can't afford to lose are the ones that get the most aggravation. Although I tend not to spend too much time on the drama boards, I do monitor them and haven't seen a single reason to regret the votes I cast in the Arbcom election. Obviously I can only speak for myself, but my feeling is that complaints from the vocal minority are just par for the course; it's only if the silent majority start taking time off from article-building to make torches and sharpen pitchforks that you need to worry about the job you're doing ;) EyeSerene talk 08:58, 16 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Appreciated :)  Roger Davies  talk 09:10, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Do I interprete you correct. you seem to be saying, don't worry if only a small minority object, consider the fact that the majority haven't said anything, so assume support from them. (Off2riorob (talk) 18:31, 16 July 2009 (UTC))


 * Not quite. I'm saying that Wikipedia policy is almost never decided by the entire editing community, but instead by a relatively tiny number of very active editors that spend a lot of time on the various notice and discussion boards. This is perhaps inevitable, both here as in RL, simply because those that are very passionate about an issue (almost always a small minority) are those with the motivation to agitate for their agenda. It follows that our policy discussions tend to be between the same editors going over the same ground, and the introspective nature of this self-selection can lead to a distorted perception of the will of the wider Wikipedia community. In essence I'm saying that for every person that complains, there are likely to be 100 more who are either happy or indifferent. If, however, a significant part of the community becomes annoyed enough to get involved, that's the time to really worry. EyeSerene talk 16:45, 17 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, You remind me of the time you blocked me for a week for a polite request to have an article to be reassessed after it had been partially rewritten and been unstable. Both correct reasons for requesting an article reassessment. I wasn't rude and I stated my reasons clearly. You called a few friends of the complainant consensus and blocked me for a week and said you would reduce it if I accepted a topic ban. All the 3 or 4 people that came to support the complainant were involved. I dispute your block of me then and I dispute it now. I made a decent request for reassessment as it is written in the pages of GA reassessment and was unfairly blocked by you. (Off2riorob (talk) 22:27, 18 July 2009 (UTC))
 * I am sure you can find the links. I would ask you to go back there and have a look at my edits and show me where I did something that was in any way worthy of a one week block. (Off2riorob (talk) 22:30, 18 July 2009 (UTC))

ARBMAC
Hi, I saw your notice on Jingiby's talk page. Just for your information, he is still under revert parole (see User talk:Jingiby and the enforcement logs concerning him at WP:ARBMAC and WP:ARBMAC).  Balkan Fever  08:59, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Normandy breakout campaign
Ah....a content fork?

I will expand the article, but the Normandy breakout is what those operations are commonly called in aggregate. The operations were not part of the Overlord, and could not have been since their planning only begun well after the landings. Of course you are correct in that the Overlord didn't end until August 30...because they were still unloading the troops which were originally scheduled for the landings, mostly support echelons of the units landed initially and the follow on troops, etc.

So my intention was to gather under one umbrella all the operations that were conceived as a breakout from the initial positions gained as a result of fighting off the beaches.

I don't understand what you mean by content fork. All those operations did not take place in a vacuum, but were in fact inter-related in their execution. That they are all existing separately simply misinforms the reader in believing that there was no relationship between these operations, but in fact there was, and a strategic one. So, just like there is an article for the Normandy landings and separate articles for the individual beaches, so too I think its not unreasonable to have an article that shows the planning process by Montgomery, who was still in command of the Americans at the time.

So I don't understand what consensus you are talking about. It is a matter of historical fact that these operations were related and not pat of the Overlord. If you read the book I cite in the article, you will see that. And sweeping changes? The only change I made is to replace the category Overlord with a new one because the operations were not part of Overlord.

And of course its not surprising you have never seen the Normandy breakout campaign mentioned in the sources on Overlord...er...because they were not part of the Overlord :)

Hopefully you can see past this to reinstate the relationship of the articles to the Normandy breakout article I created--Head West (talk) 09:09, 17 July 2009 (UTC)


 * HeadWest your article is currently one sided and full of rubbish - especially since you have decided that 60 years worth of historical sources, including, Bradleys own memoirs, are not good enough for you to establish what Allied strategy was in Normandy. On top of that i have never heard of this term to discuss these battles; Goodwood and Atlantic are more part of the battle for Caen than anything else.
 * "Not by Montgomery of course because Goodwood was supposed to be it, the breakout!"
 * I suggest you go and look at the orders for the operation, or prehaps even the well sourced planning section in the Goodwood article, before making up your mind what this operation was or wasnt.
 * "So I don't understand what consensus you are talking about. It is a matter of historical fact that these operations were related and not pat of the Overlord."
 * That is one dubious claim, how many historical sources suggest that the battle for Caen and the Americna beachhead breakout along with the Falise pocket do not fall under the umberella of Operation Overlord? Overlord was the operation launched to gain an established foothold in France and everything that took place until it officially ended was part of Overlord - landing, consolidation and breakout. An encirclement of German forces was part of Overlord.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 10:50, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

User talk:Akemi Loli Mokoto
Hi EyeSerene. I came across the unblock request on this users talk page, where he admitted to operating a list of accounts. He appears to be willing to agree to some sort of probation if unblocked, so I was hoping for your input on whether unblocking would be appropriate. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 23:40, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Invitation to provide further input on desysop proposal
As someone who commented either for or against proposals here, I would like to invite you to comment further on the desysop process proposal and suggest amendments before I move the proposal into projectspace for wider scrutiny and a discussion on adoption. The other ideas proposed on the page were rejected, and if you are uninterested in commenting on the desysop proposal I understand of course. Thanks! → ROUX   ₪  04:31, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Motto of the Day
Hi there, EyeSerene! Thought you might be interested in Motto of the Day, a collaborative (and totally voluntary) effort by a group of Wikipedians to create original, inspirational mottos. Have a good motto idea? Share it here, comment on some of the mottos there or just pass this message onto your friends.

MOTD Needs Your Help!

Delivered By –p joe f (talk • contribs) 17:50, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Charnwood
I had noticed that but it looks like you have added it all back in, no harm no foul :)--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 12:39, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Think we're good to put this up for FA review?--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 20:30, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * No probs about you not being around and cheers :)--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 16:33, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Provisional unblock
The following was posted on Geologician's Talk page on 22July 2008:

The Ban Appeal Subcommittee has considered your appeal and decided to provisionally suspend your ban for three months, subject to the following terms: You edit from one account and one account only; You abide strictly by sockpuppetry policy; You accept that your account will be checkusered from time to time to verify compliance; If the three months pass without incident, the unblock automatically becomes permanent. As you have now accepted these terms by email, your account has been unblocked. Roger Davies talk 10:50, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you Roger. The unblock will obviously vindicate me from Terry0051's accusation of sockpuppetry, so I shall look forward to an apology by that user when it becomes permanent, if not immediately. Geologician (talk) 22:58, 22 July 2009 (UTC) Geologician (talk) 08:37, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Decisive Victory for RAF
I believe you don't have the right to just delete what you think it is wrong in discussion page! That's why it is discussion page!!! I didn't say any of my opinion I just brought sources to support the point. What is wrong of mentioned sources of B.H. Liddell Hart ; Field marshal Kesselring; and Air Chief Marshal Sir Hugh C. T. Dowding !! And I mentioned their words exactly ... Try to advice the other POV to do the same. --Hiens (talk) 13:54, 24 July 2009 (UTC)


 * You've already failed to get consensus for your suggestions; continuing to dispute is tendentious and disruptive. I'm disappointed that you've restored the thread - I've left further comments on the article talk-page. EyeSerene talk 15:59, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I believe you don't have the right to just delete what you think it is wrong in discussion page!

That's why it is discussion page!!!

I didn't say any of my opinion I just brought sources to support the point. What is wrong of mentioned sources of B.H. Liddell Hart ; Field marshal Kesselring; and Air Chief Marshal Sir Hugh C. T. Dowding !!

And I mentioned their words exactly ... Try to advice the other POV to do the same.

I cannot believe your style of been refusal to scientific discussion! ; It is not only me who are opposing the Decisive victory there are many editors... and they all speak by sources and politely !! On the other side very impolite and unprofessional and misconduct editors trying to enforce the conclusion of decisive victory!! I am trying to compromise and trying to solve by bringing sources and welcoming the others to share their sources; not just name of author and his book!! If all the editors follow the same style! We wouldn’t have someone talk nasty; with sarcasm and curse the others and someone say to the other comments it is crap. My recommendation ; as long as people bring sources - exact words of source - and using their opinion and emotion then the discussion still in scientific way —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hiens (talk • contribs) 04:54, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Conflict resolution.
Hi, I noticed your advice on the Battle of Britain talk page regarding dissent between editors. You advised asking for WP:3O and then going to an RfC if that failed. I thought WP:3O was for disagreements between two editors, not a few versus many, isn't the next step talking to the relevant wikiproject who know the subject - like the WPMILHIST WWII task force, and then taking it to RfC if that fails? Hohum (talk) 17:04, 24 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure that the steps at WP:DR are meant to followed as a rigid hierarchy; although they do roughly progress from informal to formal (with arbcom as an absolute last resort), I take WP:DR more as giving a range of options that can be used in different circumstances, two of which I mentioned. I certainly didn't intend my post to be read as implying my suggestions should be tried in the order I gave them - I was obviously less clear than I could have been.
 * You're right that WP:3O is really a way to break a deadlock between two editors, but I suggested it (perhaps inappropriately, but WP:IAR and all that!) more as a way of inviting uninvolved editors to comment in a less formal sense than initiating an RfC. If I'm remembering correctly, this issue (and similar ones) have been brought up on the milhist talk-page a few times recently, and those editors involved on the article have been through all this before. That was why I didn't recommend doing so again, but of course if you or any other editors think it would be useful, you're more than welcome to contact the project yourself. I hope this helps to explain :) EyeSerene talk 17:39, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * PS: I've clarified on the article talk-page that 3O may be unsuitable ;) EyeSerene talk 17:44, 24 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I'm just trying to understand what the suggested (informal) procedure is, and/or what's actually effective. Hohum (talk) 20:10, 24 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Heh, as long as editors are communicating in good faith, anything's solvable. DR is basically just a set of measures to try to encourage that, so whatever works... EyeSerene talk 22:40, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

–EyeSerene – In Battle of Britain discussion -  you waved the blocked tool on me! Simply when I provided more sources related to the discussion never show despise, disrespect or sarcasm to others! Even if they didn’t agree as long as I am following this road then it is accepted by Wikipedia!!  ** But you deleted it ** from discussion page  And when I wrote it again in better order! You warned for blocking ……

And in the same time EnigmaMcmxc wrote in asnwering descriping my words comments  crap    ' !! You ignored that and never made any comments to him or commented his language..... Why ? '

I am disappointed to say you are biased and not been fair?! mixing your task with your personnel emotions, and user Hohum was right as you are not using the best procedure suggested by Wikipedia. I kindly suggest you to leave this article and assign it to another person.--Hiens (talk) 04:50, 28 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Please leave my comments out of this since you have misinterpreted them.Hohum (talk) 22:43, 28 July 2009 (UTC)


 * It's okay Hohum, your constructive comments were appreciated ;) EyeSerene talk 16:35, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Heinkel He 111
Hello. I am trying to get someone to assess the He 111 article I put up for GA about six weeks ago. Any chance you could help? Dapi89 (talk) 15:54, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Thats okay. It was rather cheeky. I'm just impatient with the system. Nevermind. Dapi89 (talk) 14:23, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks
Hi Eyeserene. I just wanted to say thanks for the GA mentoring earlier this month. Was very useful and a great reassurance to have someone with advice to fall back on. Fortunately Ed17 liked the look of my version anyway! I've had a crack at (and passed) a second article now, which was fairly straightforward. Thankyou also for drawing me into Wikiproject Military History which has been great for assistance and guidance too. I'm gonna take a short break from GA reviews for the moment though as something called the real world is playing havoc with my wiki volunteering life, but I may come calling for advice in the future! I like the look of He111, but sorry Dapi, it's way too big for me! Ranger Steve (talk) 18:18, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Kurfurst...again
Once again we have this editor engaging in disruptive editing, Aircraft of Battle of Britain based on flimsy "you prove your source material is accurate or else I'll remove it grounds" I replied at length here Discussion but he went ahead and removed the properly cited material anyway, citing that most of it was irrelevant. He left this "have rewrote the article based on the sources I could verify. I think I asked you nicely to provide a simple direct quote. If you can quote the material you were using, i have no objections to include it, i.e. if it verifiable. Howevever, your current conduct (removing verification tags just because they require you to provide a direct cite.. or the claim that Shaclady is for 1941... then why the heck does he mention it in relation to 1940, hmm?) is not improving the article very much, and if we cannot resolve this intelligently, I fear our only option is an outside comment or turning to the reliable sources board. Kurfürst (talk) 10:53, 27 July 2009 (UTC)"on my talk page, just to show that he is somehow being co-operative; this was well after his editing, not before. I would have thought he would have learned by now; clearly he has not. Regards Minorhistorian (talk) 11:38, 27 July 2009 (UTC)


 * It is a bizarre dispute and one which has been going on and off for a year; indeed the "progress" of this article over the year has been full of conflicts of Kurfurst v everyone else, which is why it is so patchy and will probably never get to B status, let alone GA. I know that some of my comments probably don't help but I find it so frustrating at being almost forced to spend hours in these "discussions", when my valuable time is better spent on more important things. If I refuse to respond the usual Kurfürst technique is to take that as permission to remove everything he doesn't like. My apologies at bringing you into this. Kia Kaha! Minorhistorian (talk) 04:32, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Perch
I was quite impressed to stumble across this the other day: Operation Perch on the Danish wiki Someone has taken the time to translate our work into Danish. Looks like they have also modelled their campaign box off our own and have started to translate other articles into Danish as well (the Falaise pocket article i believe).--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:18, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Australia India Relations
EyeSerene, thank you for your useful inputs. Further to the "belief" issue. Yes I don't edit pages with my belief, when I talked about my belief it was with respect to a particular user, regarding which there was nothing ever going to be anything on an article page.

Secondly, about the attack thing, I did not reply because I believed the matter to be put to rest.

I will take into advise your inputs, but I would rather not wish to cross edits with that particular user again. Thats the end of it.

Thank you very much.ankit 17:15, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

EyeSerene what is the meaning of these comments by AdjustShift [] on my talk page? I thought the matter was done. Are people going to just outright threaten me with block just like that? Is that how administrators work, through threats? Please help. ankit 18:29, 29 July 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ankitsingh83 (talk • contribs)

Yes EyeSerene thats what I am trying to do. move on. But apparently since then admins like YellowMonkey have been nad mouthing me, even though I am away from the page even when it is unlocked now. Australia admins have got me as a target. But I hope not. Thanks anyways. ankit 18:50, 29 July 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ankitsingh83 (talk • contribs)

It only took minutes
|He's an Indian again. Take note of WP:ANI.&mdash;Kww(talk) 13:41, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmm. That may have been hasty. After I cleaned up, his edits were to wikilink "British" and to remove a somewhat provocative comment. It could be that he agreed after he saw my summary. If I were you, I'd unblock with a comment reflecting that, and point out that he is being watched closely.&mdash;Kww(talk) 14:59, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * No big argument. Just wanted to be sure you noticed the follow-up behaviour.&mdash;Kww(talk) 16:36, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

good article nomination review
This article was nominated a s a good article:

Dana_Delany

and I've put it on hold and done a review:

Talk:Dana_Delany/GA1

A lot of changes were recently done, then it was nominated. I feel it ended up a bit of a mess. So I put it on hold and did a review. But there a a few gotchas I'm wondering about.


 * I've done a lot of editing of the article in the past, but haven't really done any work on it for about a year. But if that's a deal breaker, that's fair.
 * The nomination requirements mention stability, but only in context of edit wars. This article has seen a rash of edits recently, then nominated w/o time for the Wiki community in general to react. If this doesn't fall under that requirement, OK.
 * The article has been loaded up with quotes from various other published articles, and doesn't seem to fit the Broad Coverage requirement of the Wiki Guidelines, or am I misinterpreting?

Also, it appears that the article has been sort of a "learning experince" for a new Wiki editor, and both the article and discussion pages seem to show this. If I can get some advice on whether I've done this right, or whether I should handle it differently, or maybe even pull out of the review process (if even possible), I'd appreciate it. Thanks. x (talk) 15:35, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Wiki-PiiIiz
I noted it the first 15 reverts today, and then just counted on anyone that noticed looking at the history for a few edits. That sockpuppeting report got jammed up for some reason, and that always causes trouble.&mdash;Kww(talk) 17:49, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Hey
Did u change it to britsh pop for jay sean? Because he is a British Indian pop singer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Streetracer8722 (talk • contribs) 00:43, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Your comment on Ankitsingh83's talkpage
Dear EyeSerene, I read your comment on Ankitsingh83's talkpage. I believe that a firm warning was needed because Ankitsingh83 accused Mattinbgn, a good-faith editor, of "curry bashing". You can read my comment here. Have a nice day! AdjustShift (talk) 07:33, 30 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree - I had already warned them though (in my post above yours on their page), where I say their comment was unacceptable and further attacks would lead to a block. I think that because your warning came some time after mine and they believed the incident was put to rest, it just threw them a bit. No harm done though, and at least the message has got through. All the best, EyeSerene talk 07:43, 30 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your response. Have a nice day! AdjustShift (talk) 07:46, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks
Ok so I found a few sources that tells it http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1614661/20090624/sean_jay.jhtml http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/showbiz/music/article1212764.ece http://www.thenational.ae/article/20080703/NATIONAL/326774476/1010&profile=1010 “I can’t wait to do the Indian and South Asian tour,” he said. “I have such a huge fan base there, which is very special to me, and India is important to me of course because it’s my roots.”

This Video tells that he is the first indian R&B singer at the 5:50 mark http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ZG_y_UlrZg&feature=related#movie_player —Preceding unsigned comment added by Streetracer8722 (talk • contribs) 20:28, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I personally believe that you guys should write British Indian because we never had a Indian singer go mainstream before. This is a very big achievement for us and we should be recognized. We have everything from being the richest "Forbes" to being smart but never had a unique singer like him. If people claim that his family is from pakistan then whey would he be going to a Indian festival "Diwali" mela and preform, celebrate there. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GwtJwn9GL60&feature=related I. Pakistani don't celebrate that. Plus his hindi version of ride it wouldn't be hindi it would be urdu because that is the official language in Pakistan. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=giy1bfPuZD0

Thanks for the Info and trying to help me out! :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Streetracer8722 (talk • contribs) 17:44, 30 July 2009 (UTC)