User:EyeSerene/Archive18

V-B
Am thinking we should go for another FA review in the New Year after we can address everything that has been raised. As for where to go now, do you think it is wise to keep ce the article; i.e. ask Steve and Maralia give the once over?

Likewise the casualty section that was requested has now been pinpointed as a possible problem, do you have any suggestions on how to address them? Personaly i dont like the idea of tables and would prefer not to see one added but do you think it is a worthwhile suggestion?--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 16:22, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Ill ask Steve if he would like to have another crack over the article first; ill go and ask now.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 12:35, 21 December 2009 (UTC)


 * A bit of a delayed happy new year, but better late than never! I have just worked through most of the points raised by Abraham on the V-B talkpage bar one iirc; he has suggested that the lede be cut down a tad. Could you take a look at this and address maybe?--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 12:14, 18 January 2010 (UTC)


 * On reflection the statement from Forty regarding casualties for the 48 hour period looks a bit odd, do you think we should remove it and stick to the information provided by the other sources to keep it more strightforward and poentially less confusing?--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 10:48, 28 January 2010 (UTC)


 * LOL, i will take a gander =]--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 10:54, 28 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Yea that was me! I will run through Taylor etc later on, am pretty sure they establish the numbers or at least chunks of A squadron was still up and running and will provide the cite.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 11:01, 28 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Give it 5-10 years then it wont be OR ;) haha. Will deffo check out the sources ASAP and dig out what i can on A squadron.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 11:34, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Really love the lede, reads amazing and really sums up everything imo! Well done! =]--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 14:20, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

"Now this is not the end. It is not even the beginning of the end. but it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning."

In more ways than one for this article i think--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 10:36, 5 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I had forgot there was still a few bits and bobs to do; i should be able to get some free time to go over the article, the talkpage and my sources and throw some other bits and bobs as needed.
 * Well 24hrs without anything seems rather good ... the problem has just migrated to other places atm lol--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 12:05, 5 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Dont sweat it! :) --EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 18:50, 9 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Finally managed to get my hands of a cheap ass copy of Marie's work (or Henri ... never can remember which is the surname lol) should be with me in the next week and a half. Will double check the quotes and see what else there is once it turns up.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 13:47, 15 February 2010 (UTC)


 * The book has just come and i have checked out the Schiender comments at the back of the book - the ones in the article are just the tip of the iceberg!--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 13:05, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

maybe we find a book that says that marseille was a noob because he had problems with landing. iam sure there is a "historian" out there, claiming this. just a joke..... Blablaaa (talk) 20:40, 19 February 2010 (UTC)


 * E, just after an opinion here as i dont want to impress POV onto the article. Marie notes that as the Germans were pressing British prisoners to the rear an American arty barrage dropped close by and five riflemen dived for cover in a ditch - as they did the guards machien guned them. Am inclined to call it murder although Marie notes they misunderstood their reason for diving. How would you suggest the best way to word such an event?--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:41, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XIV (November 2009)
The November 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) 08:55, 21 December 2009 (UTC)



MisterBee1966 (talk) is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the Christmas cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas3}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

operation charnwood
on the villers bocage article the british claims(delaforce wrotes the unit history and copied this claims) of german tanks knocked out are in the infobox so i take the german claims of tanks knocked out at charnwood. they claimed 103 but 80 are in the box. its the same relation like on villers bocage. maybe they were immobilized or something else or maybe the claims are wrong but the claims have to come to the box. the explanation is on the villersbocage page where enigma explains... . i hope its ok, its the same situation —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.176.148.49 (talk) 02:53, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Id rather not fan the flames however there are few key issues with what you wrote that tarnish your entire point:


 * 1) The divisional history has been consulted and the claim the division made has been inputted into the article - the division's staff claim 9 tanks knocked out.
 * 2) Daniel Taylor notes the British regiments claimed 14 tanks knocked out during the battle but acknowledges that this would be a figure that includes tanks latter recovered or only immobilised but STILL put out of action during the battle. To note this is actually mentioned.
 * 3) The only claim of 15 tanks comes from Delaforce, who wrote a book ABOUT the division not a book FOR the division; he doesnt state they are claims, he doesnt say his source is Taylor, the regiments or even the division itself, he states the Germans had 15 tanks knocked out in the battle. Him and him alone; in short your point is groundless.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 01:31, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

yep delaforce not even mentions his sources, no note or explanation.... . very reliable men. immediate wartime claims are always exggarated. the six tanks which were not found are temporaly disabled or double count of infantry. absolutly improper for the infobox. wartime claims should maybe be mentioned in the casualties section with the explanation of the issue of overclaiming. bringing them to the box while better sources are available is bias and nothing else. there are many infoboxes which should be filled with immediate wartime claims. we start with CHARNWOOD —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.176.144.42 (talk) 19:11, 1 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Thats what is called a strawman argument; should i note how Reynolds, who provides the lowest figure, does not provide his source, nor do most of the others.
 * Second you can keep rambling away but you are not addressing the point that Delaforce is not a primary source, is not he immediate post war divisional history, does not use wartime claims, and was written during the 90s not during or just after the war. How do you know Delaforce is using wartime claims, or double counting where is your evidence?
 * Taylor notes that the tanks claimed were all disabled during the battle, which is a compeltly different matter and infact provides a different figure to Delaforce.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 10:15, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

GA Sweeps update
Thanks to everyone's efforts to the GA Sweeps process, we are currently over 90% done with only 226 articles remain to be swept! As always, I want to thank you for using your time to ensure the quality of the older GAs. With over 50 members participating in Sweeps, that averages out to about 4 articles per person! If each member reviews an article once a week this month (or several!), we'll be completely finished. At that point, awards will be handed out to reviewers. As an added incentive, if we complete over 100 articles reviewed this month, I will donate $100 to Wikipedia Forever on behalf of all GA Sweeps participants. I hope that this incentive will help to increase our motivation for completing Sweeps while supporting Wikipedia in the process. If you have any questions about reviews or Sweeps 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) 00:03, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Tables
Just wondering; do you have any idea how to get the table at the bottom of this article, British Armoured formations of the Second World War, to display better? I've had a play around but it still looks a bit naff in my opinion.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:36, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Figured it out, nevermind.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 03:54, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the kind words :)--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 19:08, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLVI (December 2009)
The December 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 03:09, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Intentionally erroneus editions
Could you give him warnings about adding misguiding references to this art, User:M.K introduces completely bad data found on incorrect references , that can be found as intentionally hoax. He even reverted my admonishions from his page thanx Mathiasrex (talk) 17:33, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Join a worthy project...
WikiProject Magical Realism Reconsidered! Awadewit (talk) 19:44, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Happy New Year
Hi EyeSerene, I was just wondering if you did manage to take any pics of a frosty John Baskeyfield when you were up north? I've just had an offer from User:Nthep who has received permission from another website to re-use their pics, but I didn't want your effort to go to waste. Cheers, Ranger Steve (talk) 12:25, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Cool, thanks again for trying. Ranger Steve (talk) 20:12, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

School Rumble FAC
There are some problems listed by one of the reviewers. They also suggest a set of fresh eyes if you can find someone else who is good at copy editing (the anime & manga WikiProject lacks anyone who can do anything beyond basic copy editing) :(. 陣 内 Jinnai 05:19, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Task forces
Hi. What happened to the Pakistani and Indian military history task forces? :( Acejet (talk) 12:30, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Not a bad idea, but I was wondering if something could be done about the "chakra" symbol on the template, when the pages are taggged under the task force. That's more of an Indian symbol than being relevant to South Asian militaries such as Pakistan, Afghanistan etc. Acejet (talk) 12:47, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Afd on Daniel Razon
Hi! I will gladly submit to the closing admin's decision, whatever it be. But if the article is not deleted, then please do consider merging it with UNTV. 'I'm sure you have seen the matchless ordeal Howard went through just to get one questionable RS to support this guy's presumed "notability." Someone who is truly notable wouldn't be that difficult. Howard and other pro-keep editors are from the Philippines and naturally want their people represented in WP. – Shannon Rose Talk 18:21, 14 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I also hope you read the final notes I have added 17 seconds after you placed the closure in progress tag. – Shannon Rose Talk 18:25, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

RE: Arabic
I'm afraid that is not Arabic, it's Farsi language, you will need an editor from Iran for this. Nonetheless, I can read what he's adding and I agree that this is certainly a vandal, because he added the word "قاتل" which means in Arabic (and I assume in Farsi too, because the languages are kind of close) a "Murderer." Sorry I couldn't be of much help. Best. Yazan (talk) 04:44, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

SACD
Hi!

You recently sent me a message regarding the SACD article. I made the changes after a lengthy discussion on the SACD discussion page (during which time, I presented many arguments, received responses from both Samboy and Bink, and you never showed up). If you disagreed with me, you could have presented your reasoning there to overturn mine. I acted on the changes for I wanted to be bold, as suggested by Wiki and Bink (I found out this later though), and I received no objection over my most recent arguments prior to making the corresponding changes. I have just repeated my argument there again, and hopefully you would respond.

By the way, you chose (by rolling back to a previous state without providing any further edit) to use Marbecks' website as a reference for SACD releases. The link opens up to a message that says "there haven’t been any classical SACD titles released in the last 90 days.", which is absolutely wrong (please look at ). Marbecks' out-of-date-ness was my stated reason for its removal. Please explain why you think that Marbecks' link should be used. Thank you! Iubrecording (talk) 18:42, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you! I have just replied.Iubrecording (talk) 02:17, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Rambles map
I put a few last tweaks at my talk page - thanks so much! Awadewit (talk) 16:28, 16 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I had noticed them, but thanks for the reminder :) I'll upload the (final?) version shortly. EyeSerene talk 16:59, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you
Thank you for helping to mediate what could have been an ugly edit war in Super Audio CD and helping us find a number of high-quality references which have helped us to keep the article up to date and be better referenced. Samboy (talk) 18:30, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Good News for the Academy
TomStar81 (Talk) 01:14, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you'd consider making yourself available to assist the noobs as well? Ive already offered to help anyone new to the site that needs help; if you care to lend assistance as well, you can add your name here. TomStar81 (Talk) 09:15, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

re:Milhist task force reorganisation
Well, that's quite a surprise for me as I wasn't able to follow the discussions on coordinators talk page and therefore wasn't aware of such decisions. However, merging the Romanian TF into the Balkan TF is wrong by principle, as Romania and Moldova are not part of the Balkan peninsula. What I would have understand would be merging it within a Central European TF, with a Romanian working group to be taken into consideration (due to the fact that it seems the ex RO TF means about half of the Balkans TF). I know that it's my fault I didn't follow the discussions on coordinators talk page, but I believe somebody should have pinged me especially as I created that task force myself. --Eurocopter (talk) 12:23, 18 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Then that explains everything, as I'm not accessing very often the main project talkpage. Well, what's done it's done. Perhaps those who decided this were aware of the issue mentioned by me above and considered it's better to ignore it. --Eurocopter (talk) 17:25, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Something for you

 * Yes indeed, thank you very much for following through on all those mergers/renames...my brain bleeds at the thought of the amount of work. You're a peach! Maralia (talk) 23:00, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * You're very welcome, glad to be of service :) EyeSerene talk 09:12, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Hello from the Alejo Carpentier group!
Hi Eyeserene! I noticed your discussion on the WP:MRR talk page and would like to thank-you for your interest in our class project! Currently the groups are putting together a bibliographies and we should then start adding information to our respective articles. Look for new additions soon! If you would like to help my group with the Alejo Carpentier page, it would be much appreciated. Let us know if you'd be okay with us asking you for help when needed. Thanks again! Katie322 (talk) 03:21, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

#switch/#if help
Would you mind coming over here and helping me with some intricate #switch/#if stuff for a template? I'm still learning how all of it works, and these bits are still somewhat confusing to me. I appreciate your time. ··· 日本穣 ? · 投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe 19:08, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Smedley Butler
Thank you very much, that was my first adventure with A class reviews, next stop FA. --Kumioko (talk) 19:37, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Compliments
You should see all the nice things that are being said about your map at Featured article candidates/Rambles in Germany and Italy/archive1! Awadewit (talk) 22:01, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Tactable/Hill 262
I have just noticed that both articles are at odds with one another over German losses at Hill 262 but both are using the same source; McGilvray, p. 54.

I dont have access to this source, do you?--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 09:11, 22 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Nice 1 =]--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 09:17, 22 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Aye aye--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 10:54, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

7th Infantry Division (United States) Copy-edit
Hello. I am in the process of pushing the 7th Infantry Division article to Featured status, however it failed its most recent review because one user requested a copy-edit. I was wondering if you would be willing to provide a copy edit for the article or if you knew someone else willing to do so. Thank you, — Ed! (talk) 23:58, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

trolling?
please answer my simple question why u use different methods for allies and germans, ANSWER!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.176.149.211 (talk) 18:48, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

brevity
its was cited in the note above, i wrote it in front of the note, so its better now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.176.142.82 (talk) 21:15, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Block
Would you consider extending the block for user:167.206.79.227 due to just being off a block yesterday and doing the same vandalism, or at least protecting Marriage through my WP:RPP request? C T J F 8 3 chat 19:58, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Extended to three months; I should have looked at their contributions more closely. Thanks for checking :) EyeSerene talk 20:02, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the extension. C T J F 8 3  chat 20:05, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Patrickneil
I understand that you don't like that there are non-Turks in your city.

This is what Patrickneil told me as you can see on the history of Alanya. User is showing me to the community as a racist person. This is a big fault and be surely punished. I am not racist and noone may show me like racist. Thank you. MULAZIMOGLU (talk) 11:23, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

The two week block of User:Valkyrie Red has expired
As blocking admin, it might be appropriate for you to unblock. On the user's talkpage, I've thrown down an olive branch, some unsolicited advice and an offer of mentorship if the user is sincere about wanting to make positive contributions. Thanks for your attention. BusterD (talk) 14:16, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * On reading the unblock page, I see this unblock is a function of the timestamp and the software, so the block is already lifted. Sorry for my inexperience; I've been around almost five years, but still don't have that much experience with blocks... FYI, I'll be eyes on this user, not a stalker, but a watcher. We've wasted too much time, so if the user comes back hot, well, it will end badly. BusterD (talk) 14:41, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Yongle the Great
Still persistent, usually on a daily basis but not today. See where SpikeToronto has offered to help as needed. Can I tell him he can call on you for blocks? I'm thinking of times when I'll be out of town and have little or no Internet access. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 14:45, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Page protection for List of FC Barcelona records and statistics
Hey there, can you please protect this page from being vandalized again. It was protected 1 week ago, due to Point of View (POV) disputes. The protection has expired and vandal has re-appeared again. This IP user: and possibly a sock account by, has continued to removed and dispute the references provided. I think the only way to solved this problem is to protect the article from being edited because it doesn't seem to stop. There is alot of Point Of Views, indiscriminate, favoritism and promotional edits by this user, and there is not enough references provided. Its strange, when references are provided, the user continues to complain. It is also strange that this article has been dominated by Point of Views; its like Point of Views are correct and references are seen as incorrect.

The references and information i have provided on this article are accurate; perhaps it should be nominated in the featured article list in Wikipedia. Thanks--Nciqu (talk) 15:20 3 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi EyeSerene :) ok, thanks, however the user: has vandalized the article again. I think the only option is to protect the page or block the user because it doesn't seem to stop. Thanks Nciqu (talk) 03:38, 7 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi EyeSerene, i'm reporting this IP user: which has vandalized the article. Thanks :) and all the best with you to. Nciqu(talk) 20:30, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Third opinion
Hi, EyeSerene. How are you doing? I'm just looking for some sort of unoffical, neutral third-opinion and involvement on the talkpage dicussion in regards to content of an article. I'm trying to copyedit the British National Party article in following with the peer review (particularly in regards to neutrality concerns there) but also some WP:MOS points, such as article size, WP:Not news, WP:Summary and so on. Trying to bring it up to a GA level. Basically much of the history a part from the last part is done and it seems (from my perspective) that some users are trying to block article progress for political reasons. I've been asked to discuss content on the talk, which is fine by me (obviously), but I'm not getting much contructive or real feedback from the reverters, which is begining to anger me. There is either extreme pedantry when it comes to article sources... or, simply lethargic answers and then they go on their way, leaving me waiting. This is the copyedit reverted before.

Emeraude, though personally bias against the article subject, seems to get on with it fairly constructively when the copyedit itself is in process in the article, although changes the wording around (fine). But some others are completely non-constructive, a wholesale revert and run job; Verbal's contribution was to bring me into a revert-war, demanding talk discussion and then when I started a section on it, only say "ditto". Snowded's approach when it comes to the actual content is similarly lethargic. I want to get this thing copyedited and improved, but because I have ADHD, I quickly lose focus (as well as getting frustrated pretty easily!) and go onto something else, so I was trying to get some advise or outside neutral opinion, to guide while the iron is still hot so to speak. Thanks. - Yorkshirian (talk) 21:08, 4 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi EyeSerene, sorry for the very late reply, been really busy. Thanks for the response, I'm not so much looking for somebody to "back up" my content position, but rather a neutral and fair arbitrator for the article talk (an admin) who has worked on GA's and knows what is required to make sure everything get in line with the WP:MOS. Obviously there are some POV concerns in the article-for instance the synthy list of petty "crimes" commited by various BNP members, in violation of WP:NOT "Wikipedia is not a rap sheet", when compared to other parties like Sinn Fein, who have murdered thousands of people, yet has no such section.


 * Also, I'm asking you because you're familiar with my... ahem, temprement and are aware of certain situations. From my perspective (and I may be wrong), but it seems to me a case of pulling a tiger by the tail with Snowded and Verbal. The former for instance keeps bringing up the fact that I was blocked before (seemingly at random). And there may be foul play at work to try and bait me, through general unconstructiveness on the talk, in the hopes of getting an over-masculine response to try and get me "punished" as a result. This coupled with the political considerations of the former and the fact that a general election is coming up may be a motivation to halt article progress. - Yorkshirian (talk) 05:44, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLVII (January 2010)
The January 2010 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 03:30, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

February GA Sweeps update
Thanks to everyone's efforts to the GA Sweeps process, we are currently over 95% done with around 130 articles left to be swept! Currently there are over 50 members participating in Sweeps, that averages out to about 3 articles per person! If each member reviews an article once a week this month (or several!), we'll be completely finished. At that point, awards will be handed out to reviewers. Per my message last month, although we did not review 100 articles last month, I still made a donation of $90 (we had 90 reviews completed/initiated) to Wikipedia Forever on behalf of all GA Sweeps reviewers. I would like to thank everyone's efforts for last month, and ask for additional effort this month so we can be finished. I know you have to be sick of seeing these updates (as well as Sweeps itself) by now, so please do consider reviewing a few articles if you haven't reviewed in a while. If you have any questions about reviews or Sweeps 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) 02:31, 7 February 2010 (UTC)