User:EyeSerene/Archive19

Re:AOB
How about we bring it up at the end of the month when we can put a notice about it on the Bugle. That way those reading the newsletter can see that we are fishing for a name and we can get feedback from all interested editors while we are running the coordinator elections. Would that work? TomStar81 (Talk) 16:22, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Urgent
TomStar81 (Talk) 06:40, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your RfA Support
User: - Thank for your participation and support in my recent successful RfA. Your confidence and trust in me is much appreciated. As a new admin I will try hard to keep from wading in too deep over the tops of my waders, nor shall I let the Buffalo intimidate me.--Mike Cline (talk) 08:54, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Trafalgar order of battle and casualties
Please see Talk:Trafalgar order of battle and casualties--Toddy1 (talk) 20:35, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

hi
i responed. btw iam the ip which wrote on battle of villers bocage discussion. only that u know.... Blablaaa (talk) 21:18, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Yamato copyedit question
It's going superbly well so far, and thank-you again for all of your help.

One thing I am wondering however, looking over the article as it stands now: Are the sections on "1944" and "1945" too disproportionately large in relation to the rest of the article? They seem to be somewhat bloated, and I know that FAC has frowned upon that kind of disproportion in the past. Cam (Chat) 00:04, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Has the copyedit mostly wrapped up at this point? If it has, I'm going to prep for an FAC nom sometime early next week. Cam (Chat) 06:39, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

bellamy
is bellamy given tank losses for the wehrmacht?Blablaaa (talk) 10:43, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi, feel free to drop in whenever. I have Bellamy, its a good book isn't it? Dapi89 (talk) 10:59, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Epsom peer recognition
I just googled Epsom to find a map of the battlefield, forgetting the one actually in the article we worked on, and found the map uploaded on a different website. It was actually an airsoft website giving background info on the events they are running and quite intresting at the bottom they had this "The text and images above are curtesy of Wikipedia. The full article here is well worth a read."

XD --EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 18:50, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Beautiful Day
It's me, User talk:70.54.181.70 again--back on the library computer. (Might as well reply here now. :) Thanks again for your help. Here's a song that shows a bit the way I feel Sook-Yin Lee's Beautiful 2:47 You might want to minimize the screen 0:18 to 0:40 into the video, but the song's good. Cheers. 205.189.194.251 (talk) 22:07, 22 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks - I can't get youtube at work (filters!), but I'll take a look tonight. EyeSerene talk 10:56, 23 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Yep, good song, she reminds me a little of Bjork :) Thanks for the link. I'm also glad I was of help - just remember to keep cool yourself and that assistance is never too far away: WP:AIV for obvious ongoing vandalism that needs a quick response; WP:ANI for more complicated issues; or any active admin's talkpage (bearing in mind that the first two options may produce a quicker response). EyeSerene talk 18:35, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Regarding the Invasion of Goa
Greetings Eye Serene, Regarding the "protection" you placed on the Wikipedia site "The Indian Annexation of Goa", I suggest you reconsider. The problem isn't the number of POW's Deepak D'Souza places (which is wrong and is being used to increase Portuguese troop strength on the territory on the day of invasion - his source makes no claim to what is stated), the real problem is the erasing of External Links to some great sources full of excellent pictures, graphics, maps and detailed analysis (in Portuguese) of the invasion. Any thourough analysis of Deepak D'Souza's interventions on that site reveal that he censors, edits and "undoes" many useful facts inserted into the Wikipedia site regarding that event. That warps the content. Analyse the discussions he had with various users, its illustrative. Sincerely, Goali (talk) 20:07, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank You
Thank you for your kind advice EyeSerene. Being new to this wiki-world you shed light on a great deal. I will consider this valuable information, and eventually will make some insertions into three articles where I notice there is a great deal of misinformation being conveyed, inserts deleted and sources being erased by this sort of site censorer Deepak D'Souza. Best Regards, Goali (talk) 13:34, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

History of terrorism
Actually my restoration, brings back the work of many editors and rolls back the work of one disruptive editor, perhaps you should read the talk archive and content before making blind accusations, wikipedia isn't a soapbox for one editors personal agenda and POV. Sherzo (talk) 16:21, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

User:Yorkshirian, Talk:Sinn Féin
Hi, I would assume you consider yourself somewhat guiding and sympathetic as regards User:Yorkshirian. This user is making comments for which the reasoning appears difficult to understand interspersed with derogatory overtones on Talk:Sinn Fein. Would you like to make some sense of it? I'm sure you can. Thanks, ~ R.T.G 20:28, 27 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, you are basically saying that you will not provide any input. This is compounding to my impression of you as a mentor for this user (i.e. not so very much of a mentor after all, more of a comraderous overseer) This reaction is along the lines of your long poetic anti-nationalism quotes on the other occassion that you opened your wing to shelter this bigoted user. You should think about this: if Hitler was a vegan and would have sent you to concentration as quickly for animal cruelty as for being a Jew, champions that have a twisted alter ego may turn out to be less than heroes. But at least the animals got a fair break for a while, from your perspective, right? Sorry to trouble you so much. Thank you for your examination of my civility but I should reserve the motives to query lengthy derogotising as some sort of crap and remove such comments, especially when they appear to have little else in basis. You know, reflect that bigoted imagination that makes some worlds go around. I won't bother to give it a political nametag because it would be too tempting and easy to confuse then. So long ~ R.T.G 16:54, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry but User:Yorkshirian is an instigator not a reactionary and you yourself do not seem to consider what you refer to as "ammunition to be used against himself" as just that. You suggest to me that responding to this user in a way to figure out what he wants... I have repeatedly encountered this user bigoting himself with most attacking and bigoted remarks. An experienced editor hell bent on bigoted dialogue? I see only room to prevent that before considering other matters. If you do not understand my Hitler analogy, I obviously have not understood your nationalism analogy produced on the last occasion User:Yorkshirian was the hot topic. Suffice to say that if a person were nationalist, or anti-nationalist, but fair and not bigoted in any way, they shouldn't really have broken any moral ground (is it nationalism or bigotry that concerns you?). Regardless, I see you as a particularly forgiving and guiding figure as regards this user, moreso than any other, and would like to convince you the difference in value between talk of "ammunition" and pointing out specific problems. If you are unwilling or unable to take that step but remaining able to defend this user, I would have to question your conduct as you imply. You have defended User:Yorkshirian quite a few times including this occasion in a manner to suggest there has not really been any problem, that the problem is with other users although User:Yorkshirian is unquestionably an instigator. As a nationalist or anti-nationalist, bigotry becomes you as the weakest link under peer review unless your peers are particularly lacking in savory and scruples. If you were going to provide any comforting words for User:Yorkshirian on this occasion you would probably have done so but for sure, there is a cat in that bag you have. You should feed it. ~ R.T.G 20:48, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Tao 2911
Hi Eyeserene,

Since you took the time to respond to a thread at | WP:ANI about User:Tao2911 I wonder if you could look at these diffs where he posts attacks on me at my talk page | here and | here and at the | Adi Da talk page? I do not wish to file another report as he will construe this as another attack, and continue to escalate his attacks. I am going to disaasociate myself from the Adi Da article now. My presence there is not helping. Thanks for any help you can offer. PS I am not an administrator or an aspiring administrator as Tao claims. --Diannaa TALK 14:59, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi Eyeserence,

Regarding user Tao2911, it seems that he has two sockpuppets right now, both of which have been reported. I am wondering if it possible to keep this page protected until the sockpuppet cases have been resolved. You can see them in action here, Talk:Adi Da. I know that as soon as this page loses its protection, Tao and his sockpuppets are going to demolish the page. It would be better if the sockpuppet cases could be resolved, even if that means I'm wrong, whatever, as long as there is some clear resolution. Right now it seems dangerous. Would appreciate your feedback.--Devanagari108 (talk) 23:58, 28 February 2010 (UTC)


 * accusations that I will demolish the page are absolutely ridiculous. All I am proposing is that the sourced NPOV material be replaced that admitted Adi Da devotee Devanagari removed, while he or his proxies promised it would only be moved. See the talk page there. Why would I demolish the page that I largely wrote, researched, cleaned up, and edited? This is NOT to imply that it is my page however, as evidenced by the many times Dev.108 himself thanked me for my work, and others thanked me for not allowing followers of Adi Da to keep vandalizing the page and removing info (as continues to occur, clearly). This sock puppetry thing is likewise absurd - here I am, still at work, kicking against the pricks.Tao2911 (talk) 18:55, 1 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi Eyeserene. Thank you for attending to this matter. See you around the wiki --Diannaa  TALK 21:14, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

GA Sweeps Completed!
Thanks to everyone's amazing efforts in February, we have reviewed all of the articles and are now finished with Sweeps! There are still about 30 articles currently on hold, and once those reviews are completed, I will send you a final message about Sweeps process stats including the total number of articles that were passed and failed. If you have one of these open reviews, be sure to update your count when the review is completed so I can compile the stats. You can except to receive your award for reviewing within the next week or two. Although the majority of the editors did not start Sweeps at the beginning in August 2007 (myself included), over 50 editors have all come together to complete a monumental task and improve many articles in the process. I commend you for sticking with this often challenging task and strengthening the integrity of the GA WikiProject as well as the GAs themselves. I invite you to take a break from reviewing (don't want you to burn out!) and then consider returning/starting to review GANs and/or contribute to GAR reviews. With your assistance, we can help bring the backlog down to a manageable level and help inspire more editors to improve articles to higher classes and consider reviewing themselves. Again, thank you for putting up with difficult reviews, unhappy editors, numerous spam messages from me, and taking the time to help with the process, I appreciate your efforts! --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 02:24, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Falx
Thanks for your contributions to article Falx, but could you complete the changes you started to that paragraph in a way that does not leave it self contradictory. Thanks, Gaius Cornelius (talk) 20:42, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Done - apologies for not reading it through more carefully. I can imagine how difficult it must be to write such articles; with the weapon lost in the mists of time it will necessarily be highly speculative, though I find that can be addressed in part by attributing the speculation to a source... assuming anyone has written about it any detail, of course!  EyeSerene talk 21:00, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Nominations for the March 2010 Military history Project Coordinator elections now open!
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 8 March 2010! More information on coordinatorship may be found on the coordinator academy course and in the responsibilities section on the coordinator page. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:28, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

SF/ETA
Hi EyeSerene. Thanks for the message. My main concern was that I read SF's latest manifesto and I couldn't actually see what was claimed in the article, in the manifesto itself, so I was concered it may be the random opinion of an editor or something. Then I tried to rationalise why a party which seemingly is quite removed from Iberian Peninsula may include something in its program (I'm currently reading some books about the Spanish Civil War and many republicans from Ireland fought for the communists, while elements associated with what would become Fine Gael fought for the Christian side, so thought this could be ideological motivation). The wording in the article seemed pretty much favourable to terrorist gangs like ETA (under the premise of the "poor darling" Basques, etc). Obviously the Encyclopedia shouldn't take an Anti-Spain stance, even in policy sections of parties. The wording as it is now is alright though. - Yorkshirian (talk) 22:18, 1 March 2010 (UTC)


 * As for RTG, to be honest, I find it hard to understand what he is trying to say most of the time. Natrually, I'm often called eccentric, but even I find it hard to keep track with RTG. - Yorkshirian (talk) 22:22, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Ah and an Apology
Firstly let me APOLOGISE to the way I may have come across it was not intentionally meant to be an Aggressive or troublesome standpoint.

secondly ...Ah you have an Amiga thats so cool I will try to add as much information as I can to the Amiga section I am very much into Amiga Emulation and am part of one of the Biggest Amiga Emulation sites on the net "BTTR" so if there is anything I can do or add to the Amiga emulation section please just ask as I find it hard to navigate around the site at times. --AMSCPC (talk) 17:51, 2 March 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by AMSCPC (talk • contribs) 15:26, 2 March 2010 (UTC) --AMSCPC (talk) 17:51, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Invasion of Goa
Hello EyeSerene,

Thank you for your enlightening contributions regarding the article on the Invasion of Goa. The request on Wikipedia will be great, and hopefully will improve the quality of the article.

Regarding sources on military history, I can ask the Portuguese Navy officer who was in charge of navigation on the sloop NRP Afonso de Albuquerque during the invasion to contribute on Wikipedia (Sarmento Gouveia, Marinha de Guerra Portuguesa). He navigated the sloop during the combat on Dec. 18th, 1961, but also commanded the fibre-glass patrol boat LFP Anthares on night patrol missions a few days before the invasion, spotting Indian naval movements along the coast for example. He has very interesting stories regarding the events preceding, during and after the fall of Goa. Enthusiasm and details apart, would such an input be within the scope of the article and the rules of Wikipedia?

Best regards, --Goali (talk) 21:58, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Ecemaml Block/Outing
EyeSerene, can you please review your block of Ecemaml?

The editor he is accused of "outing" is in fact a member of a highly political organisation in Gibraltar, and has appeared in the media there and in Britain. In other words, he has already voluntarily placed his personal details in the public domain. He has also effectively outed himself on Wikipedia by using his real name and URL of a website he set up in various places on Wikipedia.

The paragraph on outing states "Personal information includes legal name, date of birth, identification numbers, home or workplace address, job title and work organisation, telephone number, email address, or other contact information, whether any such information is accurate or not. Posting such information about another editor is an unjustifiable and uninvited invasion of privacy and may place that editor at risk of harm outside of their activities on Wikipedia."

I fail to see what Ecemaml has flouted here: he has not provided any of this information. He is merely raising the WP:COI issues which - having investigated myself, I have to say are pretty serious. It is impossible to raise and properly discuss a COI matter without referring to in some way the activities of the editor concerned outside Wikipedia. In this case, we have a member of a highly political group editing at Wikipedia and linking to his websites without having declared the COI, and worse, not having admitted to them when his site came under scrutiny. Furthermore, when I asked for advice at ANI I was told "You can't out someone who has outed themselves". This really does apply here. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 00:33, 3 March 2010 (UTC)


 * The edit Red Hat is referring to dates from 2006 when Peter Tunbridge was the spokesperson for the VOGG, Gibnews is not Peter Tunbridge. Red Hat is continuing with the same outing campaign Ecemaml was blocked for and ignoring the same warnings.  Justin talk 01:38, 3 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Justin is completely unaware of what Ecemaml uncovered - this Peter Tunbridge thing is irrelevant. Also, I have (privately) forwarded you Ecemaml's email to me, the tone and content which will show that he's not interested in "outing" at all.   The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 01:49, 3 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you both for your posts. I won't be in a position to read my email until later this afternoon/early evening (GMT), but I promise that I'll consider the request to unblock very seriously and carefully review my actions. I also appreciate your courtesy in raising this with me directly, but would you object if I mainly confine my comments to the ANI thread to save duplicating everything? I've left Ecemaml a fuller explanation on his talk page too. EyeSerene talk 11:59, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Of course not - please respond where you think is best. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 12:02, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks :) I've posted something at Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents that may be relevant. EyeSerene talk 12:12, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Blacklist
A blacklist that I wasn't informed of and knew nothing about. Last I remember, Red Hat tried to have several sites blackisted and failed, that was just before I took a long wikibreak. You can unlock that article if you wish, as it was a simply misunderstanding on my part and completely out of ignorance. And like many things could have been avoided with a little good faith. Justin talk 15:39, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you
Wow, thanks EyeSerene. I don't really know what to say, except that your own courteous attitude and (remarkably) high standards of civility have acted as something of model! Ranger Steve (talk) 20:20, 3 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Ah, gotcha. Seemed a fairly obvious thing to do really - I'd just popped on for 5 mins that night and saw a massive 8000+ byte edit which seemed a lot of work (and not vandalism) but a bit incompatible with an FA, so moving it rather than deleting it seemed more warranted.  So does that mean RicardoCabesa and Falaisegap are the same user?  I'd better hurry over there and post a stiff warning then initiate a sockpuppet investigation with an eye towards some indefinite hardblocks, IP rangeblocks and topicbans I guess!   ;-)  Ranger Steve (talk) 21:44, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLVIII (February 2010)
The February 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) 22:22, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Next steps
Thanks for helping with the next steps. I didn't want to post this in my reply on ANI because I didn't want to destroy the constructive mood, but Justin's suggestions were indicative of what a problem self-awareness is on that page. We all have our faults - I get too wound up by Gibnews' stubbornness and write comments I shouldn't towards him, but my jaw almost hit the floor when I read Justin's "next steps" as he and his behaviour really are the problem with the (current) massive dispute there. (If he went on vacation, tranquility would immediately descend as it did when he went on his Wikibreak). Anyway, I'm not here to dig at him, I'm just reinforcing why I think behavioural feedback is the way to go, not blocks or 1RR rules or this or that. There needs to be a long term solution where editors are asked to change their ways. I think this is in accord with your "sticking plaster" comment, no? The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 23:50, 4 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi EyeSerene, thank you for the warning. I don't know whether it should be mentioned that a prior ArbCom case was related to this issue (that of Gibraltarian). Thanks again --Ecemaml (talk) 13:45, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Email
Hi EyeSerene, just letting you know that I have sent you an email. Cheers, Daicaregos (talk) 14:26, 5 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks - I won't have email access until later this evening, but I'll take a look. EyeSerene talk 14:35, 5 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi EyeSerene, just letting you know that I have sent you another email. Cheers, Daicaregos (talk) 20:09, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Just picked up your reply. Thanks for your help, which is really appreciated. No worries. Regards, Daicaregos (talk) 20:14, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * OK - you'll get another one too, as I believed you'd seen my first reply when I got your second. Sorry for the repetition. EyeSerene talk 20:40, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * No problem. It'll all work out in the end. Thanks again, Daicaregos (talk) 21:08, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks and a couple of question about Gib
Hi EyeSerene,

Thanks a lot for your time trying to put some order in the mess we've created in the Gib talk page. It's a pity Arbitration didn't seem to be accepted. I don't seem to understand why, but that's normal given that I don't have much experience with Arbitration procedures.

I'm not participating much in the discussion at the present moment, given that all the arguments have been repeated several times and I would probably be boring or getting in the nerves of some other editors.

I've a couple of questions if you have the time: Why do you think it was recused (actually, what does it mean that it was recused instead of declined)? And what do you think the next steps should be (specifically, is there anything that I could do to help solve the stalemate)?

Thanks. -- Imalbornoz (talk) 18:39, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Re
Re "I spent nearly an hour the other day trying to find an 'official' invitation to join the project, to leave on a editor's talk page, only to come to the realisation that we don't seem to have one ...so I stole one from the_ed17 instead :) "

Hey, my property. :P No, that's what I created it for. Feel free to tweak/improve/add/subtract as you see fit. Do you think it needs an image? — Ed  (talk  •  majestic titan)  06:55, 6 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks :) Maybe we could use the one of the standard milhist images (the userbox or banner ones, I mean)? To be honest I think we should really have something like that in the projectspace somewhere. I wonder why we don't have an outreach department/section/page/whatever? I seem to recall a discussion about welcoming and inviting new editors a while back, but my memory's hazy on what the outcome was. EyeSerene talk 22:01, 6 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I suggested it, but the idea didn't take and I let it pass. Sorry for butting in, its just that for once I know the answer to a question, and its always nice to get the right answer :) TomStar81 (Talk) 01:56, 7 March 2010 (UTC)


 * We had an outreach section once upon a time . I just made the template a lot shorter, but it is now tooled for all users, not just noobs. What do you think? — Ed  (talk  •  majestic titan)  03:22, 7 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks Tom - now I'm wondering why we didn't take it up. It does seem an obvious thing the project ought to have available, even if it's not used very often. I think ed's updated template is perfect; I don't suppose it really matters if it's not in project space. A link might be useful somewhere though. EyeSerene talk 09:42, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * No, we got rid of MHO at some point. I vaguely recall some discussion on WT:MHCOORD about it... And add links wherever you want. ;) — Ed  (talk  •  majestic titan)  14:00, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Canvassing?
Hi EyeSerene, I don't know if this can be considered as canvassing. If not, I think that users such as (see this) and  could be also invited to provide comments, as they've been involved in Gib articles in the past. What do you think? --Ecemaml (talk) 18:29, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't see it as canvassing, though it adds credence to my view that there is a sense that Gibraltar needs to be defended on Wikipedia by Gibraltarians. Anyway I have let ChrisO know as he has been a participant in previous years. Not sure about EnglishBobby. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 12:21, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * This is my first visit to Arbcom and I'm not sure how (or even if) WP:CANVASS applies. Clearly the more information Arbcom has the better they'll be able to to their job and I don't see anything wrong with notifying potentially interested editors, though think it would be unfortunate to give the impression of one 'side' or the other issuing a call to arms. The statements are intended to let Arbcom make a decision about hearing the case, and I do think that's been sufficiently achieved. However, I'm sure all views will be welcome if/when the case moves to the evidence and workshop stage. EyeSerene talk 13:06, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, I see the point. I think that Red Hat's movement on warning ChrisO has been enough. On the other hand, I'd like to ask you another favour. Gibnews has claimed (falsely, as usual) that I've been blocked in the past because of harassment against him (you can see his statement in the ArbCom case). He's mentioned a "file" I prepared against him. However, as it was deleted as a sign of good will, I cannot prove the opposite (and moreover, as I'm not an admin I'm not able to locate it and ask for a precise restoration. Would I be too pest if I ask you to review http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:DeletedContributions/Ecemaml and restore the page I devoted to recording Gibnews' breaks of policies? It would be helpful as if the case is admitted, a proper evidence review phase would be implemented. Thank you anyway --Ecemaml (talk) 16:01, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Done, assuming this was the page you're after. If not let me know. EyeSerene talk 17:06, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Happy EyeSerene's Day!
For a userbox you can add to your userbox page, see User:Rlevse/Today/Happy Me Day! and my own userpage for a sample of how to use it. — Rlevse • Talk  • 00:16, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Congrats! You definitely deserve this. :-) — Ed  (talk  •  majestic titan)  01:21, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, congrats! Find a nice spot to put it and then proclaim it to the world :) TomStar81 (Talk) 03:55, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much chaps - most unexpected but very much appreciated :) EyeSerene talk 12:27, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Dear EyeSerene
Thanks for your message in my talk page, you're more than welcome. I suggest you to check the contributions of this user ChristiaandeWet [] who has been vandalizing wikipedia for a long time, reverting edits by his own and removing references with cited sources. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/ChristiaandeWet

Pietje96 (talk) 15:50, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. They've very recently been blocked, so if they cause further disruption it will result in longer blocks. If you have further concerns feel free to drop me a note, or you can report them to WP:ANI (for disruptive editing) or WP:AN3 (for violations of the three-revert rule and edit-warring). EyeSerene talk 17:10, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Milhist
Congratulations on the above EyeSerene, I agree that its richly deserved. Thanks for your message (I'm flattered) - I noticed over the weekend how sparse the nominations were and it occurred to me that if they were going to be short this term I might be able to help, but... I'll admit to being a little put off by a line on the Academy page that "Coordinators should be prepared to prioritize coordination over other wiki-activities". I realise that wouldn't strictly be the case, but I'd hate to feel guilty for not tidying up some admin matters because I wanted to do some article work (which is my real passion). That said, I'm very happy to do points 2, 3 4 on the list there (which wouldn't be too much of a drain at all, especially point 2), but I really don't think I could commit to point 1 (at least not fully - I'm sure I can do it, but not daily) ..... Any thoughts? Ranger Steve (talk) 21:17, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Cheers EyeSerene, that sounds a bit more like it, soooo..... I've signed myself up! Ranger Steve (talk) 20:34, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Request
An user, who is facing allegations here have apparently made changes to an archive of a requested move here. Can you plz revert his edits there? Axxn (talk) 11:03, 9 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Done. EyeSerene talk 11:40, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Urgent request
Hi mate, would you please give me a hand in my sandbox with the WWI contest trophies? I need someone with some experience and since you made them perhaps you could make the text layout look decent (the text is already there). Thanks! --Eurocopter (talk) 20:17, 10 March 2010 (UTC)


 * That was brilliant!! Thanks a lot mate. --Eurocopter (talk) 17:07, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Question
Hey man,

I was considering running for Coordinator for the Military History WikiProject, but I am not sure. I was very busy in the "real world" during the last elections and did not think I was prepared to devote the time to the WikiProject that it truly deserves. I'm back now and I have started getting involved again. I've always respected your opinion, especially after we served together as coordinators in Tranche VII. I would really appreciate your advice on this. Thanks and Have a Great day! Lord Oliver  The Olive Branch 22:53, 10 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank You So Much! I really appreciate your advice, Have A Great Day! Lord Oliver   The Olive Branch 15:04, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Gibraltar
Could you look at Gibraltar again and protect if necessary. Make certain its the wrong version if you do. Regards. Justin the Evil Scotman talk 16:25, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

ArbCom case has opened
An Arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gibraltar/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gibraltar/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, ~ Amory ( u •  t  •  c ) 16:54, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Request
You probably had more relaxed ideas in mind when you hoped we would interact again soon, but could I ask a favour? Could you look at and the logs of this article with the following question in mind?: if you were to conduct an individual GA reassessment of this article, would it fail stability criterion 5? Many thanks if you can help; no worries if you can't. Geometry guy 21:47, 11 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Many thanks for your comments. I hope we will find a way forward shortly. Geometry guy 11:08, 12 March 2010 (UTC)


 * You're welcome, though I don't know that I was particularly helpful. It's complicated by the productive work that seems to be currently underway - in the end I think it will come down to a re-review of some sort anyway, whether at GAR or GAN, and I think the advantage of delisting then resubmitting to GAN is the extra time and freedom it'll provide for the work to take place out of the spotlight. Just my opinion though :) EyeSerene talk 11:53, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Re, Jim Bell
You may also want to semi Talk:United States Bill of Rights. He's posting more of his rant skreeds there, which I have removed as edits of a banned user. Also, please block the IP I reported to AIV as quacking socks of his.— Dæ dαlus <font color="Green">Contribs 11:33, 12 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm reluctant to semiprotect a talkpage, but I think in that case the disruption is excessive. The IPs, though, locate to Qwest Communications Company and appear to be dynamic, so I wouldn't achieve anything by blocking them; every time that person connects they'll be assigned a different IP address. EyeSerene talk 11:44, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh well, when he runs out of IPs on that range I can use the data found by tagging them(the category) and file for a range block.— <font color="Green">Dæ <font color="Blue">dαlus <font color="Green">Contribs 11:46, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, that might be the best way to go. EyeSerene talk 11:49, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * His article and that talk page are of course now on my watchlist.— <font color="Green">Dæ <font color="Blue">dαlus <font color="Green">Contribs 11:50, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * There is a WP policy, WP:MEAT PUPPET, which ostensibly frowns on going elsewhere to obtain assistance. Above, Daedalus969 demonstrates that this policy is honored more in the breach than in the observance.  (a fancy way of referring to hypocrisy).  I also notice that neither Daedalus969 nor Eyeserene raised the issue of evidence for the proposition that someone is acting as a 'sock puppet'.  The same policy, WP:SOCK PUPPET, clearly said that a person should not be quick to assume that a person is acting as a sock puppet.  However, both Daedalus969 and Eyeserene are both doing that.  Daedalus969, especially, has been extensively guilty of precisely that offense.  By failing to ask Daedalus969 why he believes 'sock puppetry' is going on, Eyeserene demonstrates virtually automatic belief in an unproven assertion.  Also, my message here will probably be quickly erased, probably by Eyeserene, in order to conceal an allegation of violation of WP policy.  Daedalus969 repeatedly uses the technique of erasing others' comments accusing him of various violations of policy. Since this IP address will only be used for a single posting (this one) it can't be alleged to be part of a sequence.  That will not stop Eyeserene, of course!  Delete! Revert! Block! Blame the victim!  It's the WP way, don't you know?  97.120.243.97 (talk) 20:48, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Eyeserene, you don't realize what a opportunity you're missing. Show how what you did was justified, and right. For example, you semi-protected the page "jim bell", 11:28, 12 March 2010 EyeSerene (talk | contribs) m (31,126 bytes) (Protected Jim Bell: Excessive violations of the biographies of living persons policy ([edit=autoconfirmed] (expires 11:28, 26 March 2010 (UTC)) [move=autoconfirmed] (expires 11:28, 26 March 2010 (UTC)))) Just show the violations of biographies of living persons policy (WP:BLP) that you were referring to. It should be easy: Even now, somebody is removing many such violations. True, none of these violations are being removed by Daedalus969, but I'm sure he intends to start doing so. Someday. Maybe you could help out, too. 71.36.118.40 (talk) 02:50, 18 March 2010 (UTC)