User:EyeSerene/Archive15

Ogygia: Deutsches Reich/Nazi Germany
Hello EyeSerene, thanx for your message. Sorry, I didn't know about this former discussion. As a German I read mostly the german WP. Of course we use the term "Nazideutschland - Nazi Germany" in political and historical talks and essays. But I thought that in a factual article about armament you should not use idelogicals terms and such little cute flags, and when you use it, then you should use it for all involved. The other mentioned states like for example Spain were also fascistic and dictatorships (also Hungary and Romania). Then you should write "Falange Spain" and so on to stay consistently. The correct denomination would be Deutschland (Germany), Deutsches Reich (1933 -1945), Großdeutschland ( from 1937), Großdeutsches Reich (1937 - 1945) and Drittes Reich (1933 - 1945). Under constitutional law only Deutsches Reich is correct.

Großdeutschland (Great Germany) means a great Germany, to which all german states and Austria belong. This term is from pre-Nazi-period, it is a term of the 19th century and the period of Bismarck and b e f o r e. It means the contrary to Kleindeutschland (Small Germany), a Germany without Austria (Österreich). When Hitler had annected Austria in 1937, this term was often used in political speeches and propaganda. The term Drittes Reich (Third Reich) means, that Hitler had installed a new imperium after the first Reich of the middelages (Heiliges Römisches Reich Deutscher Nation, about 911 -1806) and the "Wilhelminisches Reich" (1871 - 1918). Hitler's III. Reich should last also 1000 years like the first one but it made only twelve. About this exist some jokes. The flag is correct for the Reich but not for the Wehrmacht. The armed forces used the Reichskriegsflagge, which consisted of black, white and red from the wilhelminic period. In Third Reich the swastika (Hakenkreuz) was added. The military symbol was the Balkenkreuz, which would fit quite better as the Naziflag to an article about Panzer. This as explanation of my changes.

Elsewise I must say, that the articles about these military items are very interesting, also the discussions. You english and american peoples are much more imprejudiced with such subjects than here in Germany. Sorry for mistakes in grammar and vocabulary. Ogygia (talk) 11:14, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

GA Sweeps August update
Thanks to everyone's dedicated efforts to the GA Sweeps process, a total of 215 articles were swept in July! We are currently nearly 80% done with Sweeps, with under 600 articles left to review. With 50 members, that averages out to about 12 articles per person. Once the remaining articles drop to 100, I'll help in reviewing the last articles (I'm currently taking a break). If each member reviews an article every other day this month (or several!), we'll be completely finished. 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) 19:26, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Hello EyeSerene
I have a favor to ask of you. Could I request that you check your e-mail? Thanks. Zephyrnthesky (talk) 20:52, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Sockpuppet investigations/Dewan357
You probably want to process Sockpuppet investigations/Dewan357.&mdash;Kww(talk) 02:53, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * More fun: Dewan found the library next to his school. and  was the result. Black Kite did a quick hardblock for three hours to make him move along. Time to extend the block again.&mdash;Kww(talk) 21:27, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

GA mentor
Hi, EyeSerene. I saw your name on the list of GA review mentors, so could you please review my comments on Talk:Whitney High School (Rocklin, California)/GA1? If the nominator resolves my concerns, then I plan to pass the article. Is that a good idea?--Edge3 (talk) 17:22, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks!--Edge3 (talk) 17:36, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I appreciate the time you took to review my assessment! Hopefully I will be able to pass the article soon! Thanks again!!!!!--Edge3 (talk) 16:21, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Shit...I am SOOOOOO sorry! Perhaps I should use some gender neutral wording next time.--Edge3 (talk) 18:37, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Dems on the Move
He posted his account password on his userpage, ergo compromised account. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 14:54, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Sanity check
Read through the sanity check header today, and I agree you were completely in the right. Doing one's duty here often puts us in a position where these things happen, but as a friend of mine once observed if you are not being criticized in such a manner then your not doing your job right. I hope this won't discourage you from staying the course, you've done a great job up till now, and I hope that you will continue to do a great job as we move into the future. TomStar81 (Talk) 23:04, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Protected article
Now that it's protected, would you also consider restoring the PSCF article to this state, since there was no consensus to merge the two articles? I'm suggesting that the article stay protected, but just in its pre-edit waring state.--Firefly322 (talk) 18:57, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Grammar
You have generally shown to have a much more firmer grasp of English grammar than myself so is there any chance you can identify the role of the double colon below?

"An alternative suggestion, however, was accepted :: a ministerial committee would be established in London with the task of continually keeping the affairs of the Middle East region under review."

Cheers --EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 15:19, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Academy essay
I've been talking to Burningview on my talk page about an essay he has drafted for the Academy. I don't think it's quite there but your input on the essay would be welcomed.  Roger Davies  talk 04:23, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Ogygia (Deutsches Reich)
Thanks for your answer. I see, that you are trying objectivity and neutrality. Of cause you can use my informations. A lot members of my family were fighting in the war on western and eastern front and I can say definitely, they were no Nazis, because I knew them for decades. I'm glad that today we are friends with our former opponents and I had and have friends in US, UK, France and even Russia. My interest for weapons of the war is for historical and engineering reasons and not for ideologicals. All the best! Ogygia (talk) 15:46, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLI (July 2009)
The July 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) 19:29, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

User:CORNELIUSSEON
Hey, how are you. OberRanks, here, formally User:Husnock. I wanted to drop by and let you know about the user above, since I have had sonme run-ins with him over the years. First off, I am not kicking him when he is down here, I just want to share some facts with you. This person is an upper middle aged man (60+) who retired from the Army and pretty much doesnt give a damn about Wikipedia regulations. The patterns you noticed, i.e. cutting and pasting huge amounts of text from other websites, has gone on for years. I have also seen several cases of him openly threatening users and taking matters on Wikipedia into the real world when and if he may figure out who a user is in real life. Many years ago, when he first became active, I actually had to advise him against contacting parties in real life and also told him to take his own personal information off of Wikipedia. So why am I telling you all of this? CN doesnt care what you, I, or anyone thinks. He WILL use sockpuppets and probably is carrying on with business as usual right now. I dont dislike this man, just as with you, was very concerned about his behavior. We all should be given a second chance (I am a fallen admin and was given more than a few second chances) but this situation should be watched carefully. CN takes matters on this site very personally, thinks that a block or a revert is a slap in his face and an insult against his character, and doesnt respect our regulations. Just wanted to let you know. Thanks for your time. -OberRanks (talk) 00:24, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Hill 262
Hi there mate, would you mind throwing a glance over this article? I believe it could make a successful FAC but would like to see a prose expert's opinion before. Cheers, --Eurocopter (talk) 10:29, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

List of insurgents killed in Iraq
Hello, I saw you voted for delete on this article, I myself originaly voted for keep. But, after researching the article, I came to a change of heart. I am still for keep, but I would like to massivly change the article so it is not in violation of the OR or Synthesis rule and wouldn't contain the massive raw data anymore. I made my proposition on the restructuring of the article in the discussion known. Your advice would be welcomed. MidnightBomber (talk) 06:37, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Mrg3105?
Sorry to sound like a tattletale, you may recall earlier this year an article was created that was extremely bias and showed a one sided view of the breakout during the Normandy campaign that was quickly deleted. I believe it was considered to be created by User:Mrg3105 who appears to be back again as seen from the little quip here (sorry don’t know how to do the fancy wiki link to a revision history lol) He appears not to be disruptive at the moment but thought it was something people should be aware of.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 08:10, 4 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi Eyeserene. I'm on holiday at the moment and not keeping as much of an eye on my watchlist, but....  I can't help but notice that this IP seems to be editing in exactly the same way as several IP's that you've just blocked as socks of this Mrg guy.  I haven't had the pleasure but based on his note posted to skinny that I just saw on his contribs list, I will soon...... In fact, given that he mentions Buckshot there... it must be Mrg mustn't it?  Regards Ranger Steve (talk) 07:46, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it's Mrg most likely. Looks like he's on an editing spree with Market Garden-related articles. I wouldn't revert all of his edits, as some of them are actually useful. Which is rather irritating; if he stopped socking for six months I'd certainly support him being unbanned/blocked with restrictions. Skinny87 (talk) 07:54, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
 * It would also seem that 121.216.215.96 is also our good friend. How long should we keep this up, going by yours or Wody's talkpages? Does this need to go to AN/I or somesuch as it's clear he won't stop? Skinny87 (talk) 08:36, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I appreciate that some of their edits are fine, but they're still evading an indefblock. The IPs they edit from are probably too wide a range to think about rangeblocking, so the next step would seem to be to semi-protect the various articles. I've done so for Operation Market Garden, A Bridge Too Far (film), Guards Armoured Division and XXX Corps (United Kingdom). This can be extended to other articles etc as necessary. Hope this helps! EyeSerene talk 08:42, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I really fail to understand why you people have this mentality.
 * What makes you think that I will stop after 7 October, or stop with one article, or four? I can edit ANY article, so how many articles will you have to semi-protect before someone deigns to actually ask what this is all about?
 * Consider the logic....you are refusing help on improving an article because I was blocked because Buckshot06 says I should be!
 * And this before I got others involved....--203.51.89.250 (talk) 10:36, 7 September 2009 (UTC)


 * As you are well aware, you were blocked for evading editing restrictions by using sockpuppets. When you exercise the privilege of editing this privately-owned website, you do so under the conditions the Wikipedia community has decided are appropriate. Whether or not you agree with those conditions is irrelevant. Sockpuppetry is taken especially seriously because it enables editors to gain an unfair advantage over those who act honourably in content disputes - essentially, it's an underhanded, dishonest way to operate. Promising not to recognise your editing restrictions and to continue to abuse multiple accounts precludes any extension of goodwill on our part, and until you start to abide by your editing restrictions you have no chance of being taken seriously. EyeSerene talk 11:23, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah, but I was never engaged in using sockpuppets, even by your own definition of "it enables editors to gain an unfair advantage over those who act honourably in content disputes". The only "underhanded, dishonest way to operate" was for Buckshot06 to ACCUSE me of having a sockpupet when I edited an article I had edited before with an account that I let lapse MONTHS previously. I am being blocked for sockpuppetry ever since for choosing to improve an article using an IP address as Wikipedia says I can! However, NOT ONE ADMNISTRATOR has actually taken time to look into this.
 * And why does Buckshot06 take this action against me? Because to my offer of collaboration he answered with lies and ignorance, attempting to block numerous editing activities by me in areas in which he is not competent by his own admission, and eventually venting it recently in an email as

Oh, and by the way: this isn't wikipedia, so NPA doesn't apply. You're a intolerant narrow-minded confrontationist bigot who doesn't understand the meaning of the wikipedia value of consensus, and checks the Great Soviet Encyclopedia before farting, or blowing your nose, for that matter.
 * When I, from my good nature, fixed a few things in an article he has in his sandbox because contrary to Wikipedia rules he had placed his sandbox in the article category I was looking at.
 * However, I do think you are as narrow minded as he is. You are actually preventing improvement of articles, and removing referenced edits BECAUSE you think I'm doing something administratively wrong in Wikipedia. The actions in terms of editing are not in any way contradictory to Wikipedia policies, and if you can find ONE SINGLE CASE OF ME USING SOCKPUPPETS, I will gladly never edit ANY Wikipedia article again.
 * I just don't think I am obligated to defend myself against FALSE ACCUSATIONS as if I'm in a real court of law, and I don't think that's what Wikipedia is suppose to be, but then you haven't edited very many articles lately, so may have forgotten its about the quality of articles, not 'witch hunts'.--58.168.108.109 (talk) 22:00, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

re:thanks
No problem, good luck in dealing with him! -Eurocopter (talk) 10:41, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry
Hi EyeSerene, I just accidentally blocked you for about a minute when I was trying to block one of Mrg's IP accounts. Sorry! I recorded that the block was an error in your block log. Thanks for chasing down these socks, and sorry again. Nick-D (talk) 12:08, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Rofl no more clean block log for EyeSerene. ;-) — Ed   (Talk  •  Contribs)  14:13, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * :( EyeSerene talk 16:34, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the fish. Feel free to block me for a couple of minutes on the grounds that I'm a grawp sock if you like ;) Nick-D (talk) 08:03, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Um, I just accidentally blocked myself. I'll probably delete the main page tomorrow or something. Nick-D (talk) 10:23, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Nominations open 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 12 September! Many thanks,  Roger Davies  talk 04:24, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

School Rumble copyedit needed
Jappalang has directed to ask you for help in copyediting School Rumble after he turned me down due to time issues and feeling his skills were not good enough for an otherwise FA quality article. If you have time, I would appreciate some help. 陣 内 Jinnai 22:12, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Not too much. It's still under a peer review and I have another article up for FLC as well as not other RL issues atm. 陣 内 Jinnai 21:26, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Replied to the comments. I'd like to get some responses before I go about editing it as some of them are more, especially with stuff like names. 陣 内 Jinnai 22:11, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

watchlisting
Re : Awesome, thanks so much. A fresh pair of eyes on the situation is long overdue, and help may well be required to stop these problems recurring when the blocks expire. Best, Knepflerle (talk) 17:07, 11 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Glad to be of help. I don't edit much over the weekends, and when I am onsite I'm generally well-occupied, so AN/I may be more useful. I'll certainly do what I can though ;) EyeSerene talk 17:17, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLII (August 2009)
The August 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) 19:46, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Comment in "I, the Supreme"
Hi, Eye.

Regarding the comment in "I, the Supreme", certainly, I had to put "one of the main sources" or neither this. The source for this comment was Augusto Roa Bastos -that was friend of mine- personally said it to me. Anyway, any paraguayan investigator knows that all this data came from this Collection, made in the 20's and 30's. It transcripts all the correspondence SINCE the Supremo office to all his collaborators. It is one of the main collections in the Archivo Nacional de Asuncion (where we are sponsors) despite his only 6 vols devoted to Francia and 10 vols devoted to Pdt. Carlos A. Lopez. I think it was important to the public to know that the collection is finally published and accesible. If you agree, you can edit my little text as you find convenient, and put it in the exact place you evaluate, but I ask you to consider to put it in some place of the main text of ther article.

Best Regards,

Martin —Preceding unsigned comment added by Genealogistas (talk • contribs) 18:10, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Stevertigo and Talk:Holocaust denial
As you've been recently involved in discussion with Stevertigo at Talk:Holocaust denial, I thought you might want to add your thoughts here. Jayjg (talk) 01:19, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Operation cobra edit
Thanks for leaving the comment on my page. I think this article was made much worse several momths ago, along with other Normandy articles, and I've lost the energy to care any more. I have a complete alternate version almost done but I dont know if I will bother finishing it.

Regards, DMorpheus (talk) 21:30, 16 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry to butt in but this is the same attitute that you have displayed for alsmost the last two years, not happy with any of the updates made to these articles, not happy with change and progression and fighting every inch of the way against it. Would this alternative version of the article you are working on, be like the one you started work on for V-B almost fantasty?--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 15:27, 17 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, in what concerns me I'm still around and even though I agree with constructive changes I won't agree with any attempt of ruining our work. And I believe that the others who helped me with this article share the same opinion... --Eurocopter (talk) 15:40, 17 September 2009 (UTC)


 * It seems to me that the articles are a fair reflection of current historiography, and we've been careful not to take a pro-British (or pro-American) stance; in fact, I find the entire post-war British vs American pushing and shoving in self-serving biographies by Patton, Montgomery, Bradley and others - and their hangers-on - rather distasteful and prefer not to think of the campaign in those terms. I suppose it's interesting from a historical perspective in examining, for example, the effects of mass-media and associated personal publicity campaigns in the first real 'reporter's war', but I think unlike early historians who perpetuated the debate, modern historians are moving beyond it. The other issue has seemed to me to be personal interpretation of the intentions of various commanders - Monty in particular. This makes for interesting discussion, but we are rightly limited by the sources as to what we can actually write. Where they disagree, we've hopefully reflected that with appropriate weight. Just a thought, but one option might be to open an RfC; if DMorpheus really believes the articles are worse off and we've introduced a POV, it might help to settle the issue one way or another. EyeSerene talk 16:25, 17 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Some (not all) of these comments on this very page illustrate what's gone wrong with Cobra and other Normandy articles. They are personal attacks on me and sometimes attacks on the very notion that anyone could possibly disagree. This is not constructive discussion of the issues. The articles are in no way a fair presentation of the issues; they often take a settled position on issues that are open to question or which have many interpetations. I base all of my remarks on what it published.
 * Please do not assume I take any position in particular on the old 'Patton vs. Montgomery' debate. I couldn't care less about such nonsense. Nationalism has no role to play here; trotting it out is unconstructive.
 * Yes, the articles generally conform to the formal, process-oriented wikipedia standards. No, they do not truly reflect the historiography. Both the Cobra and Goodwood articles fall into this problem.
 * Regards, DMorpheus (talk) 21:51, 18 September 2009 (UTC)


 * A half finished article is half your proof of this position? That’s somewhat laughable since i only consider the information thus far on the Anglo-German preparation and pre-Goodwood attacks to be finished; would you care to point out some of the glaring errors? Would this be to do in with the removal of the one sided, mostly unsourced, “analysis” of the operation until it can be made more even and have some modern research thrown into the mix?
 * Personaly i think you should get over yourself, my comments above were not just petty attacks upon yourself they were remarks backed with two years of harassment off you and your behaviour to others in regards to these articles. Your comment above is the ultimate irony: the “very notion that anyone could possibly disagree", this has been your position on the Normandy articles since the get go, if anyone disagrees with your sources in the slightest manner than the whole article is rubbish (or you add those stupid tags all over them or sit reverting the additions made)! Am sorry but if you feel this is just another attack on you i suggest you go review the archive talkpages....--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:09, 18 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Again you have proven my point. Regards, DMorpheus (talk) 21:38, 24 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Typical attitute, however as i attempted to point out to you above, your ego is not the issue or what we are debating here. How about you reply and talk about the articles instead, i am still intrested to see where the glaring errors and ommissions are in the half finished Goodwood article not to mention in the other Normandy articles.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:29, 24 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Er, armed admin here... I appreciate that you've had your differences in the past, and that there's clearly some exasperation and bad feeling on both sides, but I'd hoped we could sort these differences out rather than having them surface during the final stages of article preparation for FAC (or during the FAC itself). Taking shots at each other on my talk page is not the best solution ;)
 * DMorpheus, if you have objections, you really do need to be specific and to supply reliable sources that reflect your concerns. The reason I mentioned the British vs American thing is that I suspected it might be an underlying issue, since it was my impression that your main point of contention is with the idea that Montgomery always intended the Normandy campaign to be won by attritional means. This is intimately linked to sources (such as D'Este) that take a partisan viewpoint based on post-war interpretations, now seemingly discounted by more recent historians. However, if I've read things wrongly, I unreservedly apologise. EyeSerene talk 23:02, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

thanks
hi, thanks for your comments and suggestions

regards....

الله أكبر Mohammad Adil  15:51, 17 September 2009 (UTC)


 * i use inkscape now, previously i use to use window paint, but map's quality was really poor in it, then i started using inkscape and have replaced most of my previously made maps with new one that are made by inkscape. I make them in inkscape but save them in PNG format as SVG format troubles me a lot,(u gotta install a softwear to open them).

الله أكبر Mohammad Adil  05:24, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Military history coordinator elections: voting has started!
Voting in the Military history WikiProject coordinator election has now started. The aim is to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months from a pool of sixteen candidates. Please vote here by 23:59 (UTC) on 26 September! For the coordinators,  Roger Davies  talk 22:09, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry
Sorry, i reverted ur edits on Vector Graphics. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 08:50, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Your very welcome, thanks a lot. [Sorry for the English above, I was eating].. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 08:58, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Perch revisted
I have been working on resolving the remaining problem of the Villers-Bocage article and have instead added additional material to the Perch article. With the additional comments I have added, in conjunction with Wilmot's comments that were already in place, do you think we are in a confident position to claim that the operation was a strategic victory for the Allied forces? Most of the negative comments are basically looking at the command mistakes made and the missed opportunity but not the “bigger picture”.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 02:37, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks and a request!
Thanks for your service as coordinator on WPr Military History for the last six months. Great job, the Wikiproject has matured some more. Lots more needs to be done though.

Would you consider giving a para here on what you planned to do, what you could achieve, what gave you happiness, what irritated you and your suggestions for the road ahead to the new team?

All the best for the new elections!

AshLin (talk) 04:17, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Take your time. Was curious about your work done, creativity, satisfaction level and ideas. AshLin (talk) 17:24, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * No, really. Don't bother till you are absolutely okay. Flu really enervates. AshLin (talk) 17:30, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Scathing.... Tell me bout it! Don't we all! AshLin (talk) 17:39, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Response
You've asked some interesting questions that have certainly made me reconsider my time helping to coordinate Milhist. I'm grateful for this, because it's easy to settle into a routine and neglect to reflect on things like goals and performance, simply because what was once new has now become habit. My main ambition for the next term is to develop our Academy. Although I've been able to spend far less time on this than I would have liked, I've nearly cleared my copyedit backlog, so I should be able to get more hands-on soon. I'd like to see the Academy develop into a resource that's not only useful to Milhist, but all of Wikipedia. Before being coopted to the team in late 2008, I was very active at GA and elsewhere, and I think we perhaps need to remind ourselves every now and then that Milhist doesn't operate in isolation :) At Wikipedia's heart is the notion of empowering people by giving them access to knowledge - what could be a better reflection of this than providing quality material that lets them empower themselves? There have been a few annoyances, but nothing major. I see the main detriment to the project as POV editors who make life difficult for others, even to the extent of putting off many of our productive members from working in certain areas. I think we're generally good at handling these when they're brought to our attention, but I'd like to do more to encourage good editors to involve themselves in these areas (examples include India/Pakistan, Britain/Ireland, the Balkans etc). I wish I knew how to do that, but I think we can make a start by providing clear support, guidance and backup for editors who want to get involved. Overall I've found Milhist to be an immensely rewarding and satisfying place to work, and I'm sure will continue to do so. EyeSerene talk 12:00, 25 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you for responding. Your reply greatly interested me. The Wikipedia Academy effort needs all the help that you can give it. I also wish you the very best with bringing subcontinental observers into the mil hist editing mode. There's a lot of toxic waste out there! All the best for re-election! AshLin (talk) 17:29, 25 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you! EyeSerene talk 10:03, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

RE: Hill 262
That's odd. Most of the information I have concerning Hill 262 is already firmly embedded in the article for Operation Tractable. I'll go back and look through my other sources when I have time. Cam (Chat) 04:26, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Remember that the Polish 1st Armoured Division split into four battlegroups, and only two of those battlegroups were on Hill 262/Mont Ormel. One of those battlegroups captured Chambois (along with "Currie Task Force") on 19 August, linking up with the 90th Division from the south on that day. Cam (Chat) 05:53, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I would tend to disagree with this statement; both Copp and Stacey state they was only three battlegroups (one would assume an infantry battalion from the motorised brigade and a armoured regiment from the armour brigade operating together how the British Armoured divisions had been operating since Goodwood and 7th Arm since the beginning of the campaign) operating with the recon regt out ahead of them alone.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 08:03, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

ani comment
Just as the company's enemies can edit, can't an interested employee also do the same? What would stop them? Besides, that one person would edit on their own. They could seek opinions from the company just as teenage Wikipedians can ask their parents what not to edit and to comment about their edits.

Of course, that person will be outnumbered but could still present neutral, reliably sourced ideas. How does Wikipedia guard against many editors who are dissatisfied customers from having a negative bent article of a company on Wikipedia? Or from a unpopular country from having a negative bent, maybe like Burma?

If I were to be asked that question, I'd say that companies are not allowed to be users but that their employees could individually edit. Whether their employees review their work with the boss is up to their company computer use policy. Naturally, we would like disclosure that they are employees but we should also demand disclosure from irate former employees, dissatisfied customers, etc. How we balance that the irate former employees and customers don't disclose their situation is an unanswered problem. We should also demand a well written, neutral article and shear votes should not count. What are your thoughts? President of Chicago (talk) 03:48, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I was referring to the ani comment about some company (record company?) who asked if an employee can edit. President of Chicago (talk) 14:23, 26 September 2009 (UTC)